This is topic Should there be additional qualifications for the right to vote? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055092

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Potential qualifiers/disqualifiers:
- language
- government financial assistance
- education (at least a GED?)
- historical/constitutional knowledge (one time test similar to citizenship exam)
- employment
- property ownership
- etc
 
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
 
The only qualifications for the right to vote should be age, citizenship, and caring enough to do it.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
IIRC, most states in the US do in fact restrict people in prison, on probation, and on parole from voting.

This restriction is not necessarily universal, for example Canada does allow the majority of this group to vote (except, and this is hazy, those convicted of treason).
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Citizenship requirements (unless natural born) are stricter, American history, English, etc.
I'll give you 100-1 if you're on welfare you'll vote one way. Is this a conflict of interest when one party promises to take money from another and give it to you for your vote?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Cause those sorts of restrictions have worked so well in the past. In my readings and studies, barriers to voting rights have always been stumbling blocks in society, not points of advancement. When people either feel like they have no voice, or when they actually have no voice, upheaval blooms.

I'm not even sure age should be a requirement for the right to vote. I'm all for allowing people younger than 18 the right to vote, though I think that anyone younger than 18 would have to jump through special hoops in order to gain the ability, I think it is their right to be able to.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Malanthrop,
What an interesting concept! You're right, those who have just crossed the border from anywhere, or those who are already getting government subsistence are almost assuredly going to vote a certain way. Is their vote less valuable because of their life situation? Should the value of their vote be discredited because of the choices they made that caused them to gain subsistence, or enter the country and desire for their friends and family to also enter?

A big part of me suggests the implementation of qualifiers/disqualifiers could level the voting field, but would all voices then be heard? Do we need all voices to be heard?

I Suggest:
Language
Education (at least a GED)
Employment (pays taxes)

I think implementing those qualifiers/disqualifiers would start to even out the voter field, yet still allow voices from all walks of life, and encourage those to work and at least get a basic education.

Lyrhawn,
Allowing a free-for-all when it comes to voting would cheapen its value in my opinion. Like buying a new car, if I bought it myself, or if my parents bought it for me makes a big difference. If I had to finish high school, and have a job and speak English in order to vote, then my vote would mean more to me, and the system as a whole.
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
I agree with Lyrhawn.

Beleaguered-

While I certainly understand your point that your vote would mean more to you if you had to earn it, there are still other things to keep in mind. If you're a citizen in this country, there are going to be laws made that affect you. I think that because of this, you deserve to have your voice heard. I think that additional voter requirements is a form of redlining that toes a very dangerous road. If you were forced to have a job, how would retirees and the unemployed voice their concerns? What if there were institutional changes that needed to take root in order for them to find a job?

I can understand that your vote is cheapened by the free-for-all nature. I, on the other hand, value my vote more when I consider that my voice is added to a great mass of competing ideas. But then again, I could be crazy that way. [Smile]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm not concerned with how someone votes but that they at least have a basic knowledge of our system of government and our founding principles. I worry that our country has lost sight of constitutionality and our founding principles. I'm becoming concerned about the class warfare that is going on. I see a turning point where more than 50% pay no taxes. When the majority pays no income tax or infact gets a "rebate" they are one sided voters for life. They've been bought.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Even elementary school children understand the unfareness of a student promising ice cream for your vote. We're not talking about ice cream but thousands of dollars, free health care, free college, etc etc. Is it appropriate for a politician to promise so much for your vote? Is it a miscarriage of democracy?
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Vadon-

I hadn't thought about the retirees. I was focussing on a person's interest in the system as a tax payer. Perhaps as long as they are recognized in the system as a tax payer, that would suffice. I agree with Malanthrop, that we need more educated voters. I also believe someone's completion of at least their GED would ensure a basic level of education that could prove useful to the voter system.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Malanthrop,

a miscarriage of democracy? Perhaps it is. I know what you just described, with the ice cream, and then health care and college, that's the way it's been for as long as I can remember (not too long I suppose). So, you're suggesting we have been conditioned so long to submit and expect? When I form my political opinions and stances, I do so based on how a party can improve the current situations where I feel they have gone wrong. The military, for example has been using bribery tactics such as what you are suggesting with the politicians. I know the military offers free college, free health care and much more. But the military also asks its participants for a great sacrifice in exchange. What will we need to sacrifice or exchange in order to qualify for the government's promised proposals?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
beleaguered -

Education and employment eh? Maybe you could just openly declare your intentions to initiate class warfare and at least get it out there freely. Don't get me wrong, I think education is vital when it comes to voting, but I think disenfranchising a huge section of the population that hasn't graduated high school (in ever increasing numbers in the previous decade) and is out of work is a great way to rob millions of a vote who desperately need a voice in government the most.

Ours has always been a nation with high ideals and goals that we rarely meet in practice, and some of our worst offenses have come when the wealthy gain power at the expense of the downtrodden.

The law of the land has always been innocent until proven guilty, the ideal of our laws have always been that you need an excuse to make something illegal rather than a reason to legalize it. Gaining the right to vote has been a 230 year struggle for a LOT of different people. Women, blacks, immigrants, catholics, Indians, citizens of the country from places like DC and the territories, have all started from a position of not being able to vote and have had to fight to get that right. They came from a place where you had to have land to have a vote, and we even tried that for a time here too, but we came here specifically to get away from that idea. And we formed a new country with the ideal that the only thing you need to have in order to vote here is the virtue of being here as a citizen. Citizenship is the only real marker necessary for the right to vote (with relatively few exceptions).

Backsliding tends to happen in inches and avalanches. This would be an avalanche.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Even elementary school children understand the unfareness of a student promising ice cream for your vote. We're not talking about ice cream but thousands of dollars, free health care, free college, etc etc. Is it appropriate for a politician to promise so much for your vote? Is it a miscarriage of democracy?

Other than in return for military service, who is offering free health care and free college?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The current president "promised" those things.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Lyrhawn-

I get this might not be the answer, since as you put it, the idea could cause a class war. We are coming as a people and Nation from a time we had to fight for our right to vote, but have arrived at a time when the vote means little to nothing. I don't presume to know everyone's intentions, and political inclinations to the point of saying that with accuracy, but I do know what I've seen as a voting member, as someone who has genuine concern for the Nation's welfare. I have noticed people by the vast majority keep themselves on a political surface- at best. IF the choice to vote is made, the choice to become educated is often not. All citizens have a right to be heard, and to place their "Xs" in the appropriate boxes. But what is your answer for those under-educated who take their vote so lightly and pluck from the surface what might make them temporarily happy?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Is it appropriate for a politician to promise so much for your vote? Is it a miscarriage of democracy?

To paraphrase Alexis de Tocqueville, in order to enjoy the inestimable benefits that the liberty of democracy ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils it creates…. We submit to the failings of democracy (such as the famous Alexis misquote notes: 'The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.') because it's certainly better to let people vote as stupid as they want to vote than to 'preserve' them from the consequences of their voting.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The military offers "free" healthcare since they don't pay enough for you to buy it. I separated last year and now buy my own healthcare and take home more money. The "free" college they offer costs each service member $100 per month for their first year of enlistment. Only 10% use the benefit and it expires 10 years after separation from active duty. They are making money from their free college.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
But what is your answer for those under-educated who take their vote so lightly and pluck from the surface what might make them temporarily happy?
Better candidates.

In reality I have a much, much longer answer, but it'd involve a half dozen different solutions acting in concert. It'd have to do with education reform, the problems in the American family, the problems in American civics education and civic participation, in civic leadership and civic membership (how we treat our basic citizenship).

But at the end of the day, I don't think our participation rates are low because people are too stupid to understand what is going on (I think that's part of why those who do vote tend to vote in the wrong people sometimes), I think it's because the masses who don't vote believe that their vote no longer matters. Apathy is our biggest enemy, and that's something systemic that it takes a generation or a transformative figure to change.

I'd flip your question around on you though: What is your answer to the unbridled greed that leads the highly educated in positions of wealth and power to use their vote to secure more wealth for themselves to the long term detriment of society? You're identifying a problem that transcends education (but is still comprised of education).

malanthrop -

Really? I remember him promising "affordable" health care and college. Affordable to me isn't free, it just means I won't have to go bankrupt to gain access to those things. There's a pretty wide chasm between those two things.

ETA: As of the most recent GI Bill update, I don't think they pay into it anymore. Not in the way you describe that is.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Ah but we aren't a true democracy but a constitutional republic. When the constitutional limits on government are ignored we will become a pure democracy, mob rule over the rule of law.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
How can the unemployed afford health care? How can someone making minimum wage afford even affordable healthcare?
"Affordable" translated.....If you can afford it, you'll pay, if you can't the government will....from each according to his need, to each according to his ability.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
More like, we have a messed up health care system that is the most expensive in the world and doesn't even deliver the highest quality of care, so why not cover everyone and at the same time bring down costs for everyone and make everyone more healthy to boot? The system has been in dire need of fundamental change for at least a decade.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Tort reform. Lawyers and insurance company's are the reason health care is so high. Doctor's insurance rates are passed on. Beleive me, the government is not the model of efficiency. Government budgets work this way,...it's the end of the quarter and we have $40,000, if we don't spend it they'll reduce our budget. It will be abused, every sniffle and cough people will go to the doctor since it's free.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Read up on both Obama's actual proposed plans, and the health care reform bill that Ted Kennedy is moving through the senate and then we can continue this conversation. It's not as much fun when we aren't debating on a level playing field. It's no fun at all when you're arguing against something that doesn't exist.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I've read his plan. It's full of complaints about the current system and promised outcomes, "it'll reduce your premium by $2500". A lot of "In my plan you will...." No details and lots of assumptions but we can Hope for Change.

[ March 21, 2009, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
...citizens of the country from places like DC and the territories, have all started from a position of not being able to vote and have had to fight to get that right.

Correction: are *still* fighting for that right. Also, health care in the military isn't 'free', it's a job benefit. It's earned. You are right about the new GI Bill, though, it no longer requires servicemembers to pay into it.

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'll give you 100-1 if you're on welfare you'll vote one way. Is this a conflict of interest when one party promises to take money from another and give it to you for your vote?

You're right, someone on welfare is more likely to vote for a candidate who supports those types of program. They have a personal interest in it. Same as those in the military are more likely to vote for candidates who support higher pay raises/more benefits (like this new GI Bill) for servicemembers. Or, for that matter, any other person or group affected by a government action/program. Such is the nature of democracy. We are a nation of conflicting interests, and not everyone is going to agree. So you vote for the candidates who most closely represent what you believe in and everyone else does the same. Then the votes are counted and somebody wins.

You don't think welfare programs are a good idea? Vote for candidates who agree with you. Write your senator. But you don't have the right to deprive welfare recipients of the right to vote simply because you don't think they should be getting money from the government. The way to change the system is to get involved, not deprive others of doing so.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Welfare is great for people who need it to get back on their feet. We need a safety net, the problem is for some it is a hammock. There are multigenerational welfare recipients who view it as a right, owed to them. Getting assistance from the government is fine but if you are able bodied and 100% of your income for the entire year came from the gov't, I do think you should not be able to vote. A single mother who works and receives benefits is simply doing what she can for her family and has all my respect. I do not look down on people who need help as long as they are also willing to help themselves.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 

This is a problem that transcends traditional education. Your explanation at what your actual answer might be intrigued me, not that I'm asking for your essay on the topic. I agree there are some fundamental issues within society that restrict us from taking care of each other, from getting the proper education that might fascilitate for the deeper understanding of politics needed to really get involved.

I'm a firm believer the family is the source, and could be a common denominator in truly successful people. Those who come from a family that is taught to appreciate and understand the way life works are better equipped with the tools needed for life. I don't have a lot of faith in the education system, which is why my wife and I working with different forms of socially interactive homeschooling networks. When people are raised with an appreciation and love for knowledge, they will learn, and become an asset. When they sit on their government issued hammock, sipping their government bought lemonade in the middle of the day while everyone else is at work, or desperately looking for work, well, then I have an issue. Those types of people drag us down with their rights, since they are no longer living to create a better America.

I think it's ironic how my description of a lowsy free-loader resembled Lyrhawn's description of one of those wealthy greedy execs. They are very similar in motive.
 
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
 
Malanthrope
quote:

Member
Member # 11992

posted March 21, 2009 04:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can the unemployed afford health care? How can someone making minimum wage afford even affordable healthcare?
"Affordable" translated.....If you can afford it, you'll pay, if you can't the government will....from each according to his need, to each according to his ability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

quote:
To each according to his contribution is considered by Marxists and other socialists as a characteristic of society after a socialist revolution and before the transition to communism. According to Marxists such as Lenin it essentially means that people are rewarded for the value of their labour that has been contributed to society while according to certain socialists it may also mean rewarding an individual for the corresponding amount of labour-time.
Malanthrope
I was reading down through the thread and came across: "from each according to his need, to each according to his ability." It seemed familiar to me so I Googled it and saw that it is a quote of Marx. From the thread I think you presented that quote with some sarcasm. Not everyone may be familiar with the quote and so miss out on the sarcasm. (I do not want to be taken as a know-it-all and get my head bit off) but perhaps since it was a quote it should have been presented as one?
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I've read his plan. It's full of complaints about the current system and promised outcomes, "it'll reduce your premium by $2500". A lot of "In my plan you will...." No details and lots of assumptions but we can Hope for Change.

Sounds like you've just read the talking points. The ENTIRE plan is here.
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
As for voting restrictions, I'm with Lyrhawn on this one. Voting restrictions, even well intented ones, only serve to prevent people we don't like or who disagree with us from having their opinions registered.

You did forget at least one possible criterion, though, as long as we're spelling them all out -- in Starship Troopers, Heinlein proposed a 2-year civil or military service requirement in order to obtain citizenship. Not sure how practical it is, but interesting nonetheless.

Oshki -- I'd wager that nearly everyone on this board knows who said that quote and what the intention was. People have been comparing Obama's plan to communism for some time.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
those who are already getting government subsistence are almost assuredly going to vote a certain way.
Great! No one who works for a corporation that gets a tax break from state or local people or bailout money is allowed to vote. Also, no government employees. That'll eliminate voting rights for all local officials, postmasters, law enforcement, and teachers from kindergarten through grad school. After all, they get money from the government - they shouldn't be allowed to have a say in how it gets proportioned.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Excellent point, kat! Maybe we should include people who own or work for companies that do business with the governement - garbage collectors, road maintenance, defense contractors. Oh, and people who use government services like schools and police.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
No, there should not be additional qualifications for the right to vote.

1. Language - At least in Canada, all potential citizens are supposed to be able to speak either French or English to the extent that they can read the citizenship test and answer questions. So in Canada at least there is a very minor restriction already in place.

Given the US has no official language (or it didn't last time I checked), I'm not sure which language you are referring to.

2. Government Financial Assistance - This has already been addressed in numerous ways.

3. Education - There are people with an excellent grasp of politics who never graduated high school. There are people who have a college degree who don't vote at all.

4. Constitutional Test - Couple of things. This should be being covered in elementary school anyway and if the education system isn't producing people who have at least a basic grasp of the US then it should be the education system that the money (see next point) goes to. Secondly, applying massive standardized tests like this will cost a fair amount of money-- where do you propose to get that? Are people paying more taxes or do they have to pay to take the test? Does that mean people are paying to vote?

5. Employment, which beleaguered further defined as "pays taxes" - Do you really have any idea how many people you're excluding through this? Lots of people, for example, stay at home mothers, work but have very little or no income. They do not pay income taxes. I assume they would be exempt and allowed to vote. In Canada we have a cut off point below which you owe no taxes (even if they are subtracted from your income, you claim them back). The very poor--including many students--would be restricted from voting.

But how do you define this bracket? Are people who are unable to find employment exempt? Say they are computer engineers laid off in this latest troubles and there are no jobs in their field so they go on their severance pay (if they are lucky enough to get it) for maybe a year. Are they allowed to vote or do they have to accept a job at MacDonald's in order to retain their voting rights?

Now, concerning age, I do not think the age needs to be changed. However, that said, I think the age should be the same as being able to join the army. If you can join the regular armed forces at 17, for example, I think it unfair that you can't vote. We can't say that people are old enough to make that kind of decision and not a decision about the government.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I think that some additional requirements to be able to vote, including many that have been discussed here, could be better than how we have it set up now. However, it would be disastrous to try to implement those changes from where we currently are.

quote:
Originally posted by beleaguered:
Malanthrop,
What an interesting concept! You're right...

[ROFL]
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
Oshki -- I'd wager that nearly everyone on this board knows who said that quote and what the intention was. People have been comparing Obama's plan to communism for some time.

I even knew that, and I'm probably the least educated person on this forum......
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
" However, it would be disastrous to try to implement those changes from where we currently are."

Where would we have to be in order to implement them without having disastrous consequences?
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
How about taking a page out of Starship Troopers and adding a service requirement?

You must perform X hours of service to the country/community in your life time to qualify to vote.

To make it broader than Heinlein's view, make it service to the community of any type (not just military). Volunteering at a shelter, blood bank, hospital, school, etc. There could even be exemptions for those people whose professions already are service to the community, such as teachers, police, firefighters, public defenders, public sanitation, etc.

Limit voting to those people who care enough to give some of their time back toward helping the community at large in some way.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
There are some single parents who work two jobs trying to support their kids, and may honestly not have time to devote to things like this.

Honestly, I think the most fair system is exactly what we have now. My problem is less with who gets to vote than HOW voting is done. If more that two candidates are running for a position and everyone only gets one vote, you are doomed to a two party system.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Where would we have to be in order to implement them without having disastrous consequences?
Starting from scratch is one. We had some similar requirements early in US history.

I have a vague memory of some society, probably from science fiction, where not only did you have to qualify to vote, but you'd get one vote for each qualification. So if you got your degree, held down a job, served in the military, were a land owner and employed people, you'd get 5 votes. Does that ring a bell for anybody?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

I'll give you 100-1 if you're on welfare you'll vote one way. Is this a conflict of interest when one party promises to take money from another and give it to you for your vote?

HAH. It's a conflict of interest if you vote for a party with your interests in mind.

NOVEL!

Next you'll tell me that republicans have a conflict of interest because they want lower taxes.

I think this is what we call an "interest," rather than a "conflict of interest."
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Starting from scratch is one. We had some similar requirements early in US history."

yeah. They were pretty bad requirements. Why should you have to own property in order to vote? People who rent are still citizens. Why should women not be able to vote? etc.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Starting from scratch is one. We had some similar requirements early in US history."

yeah. They were pretty bad requirements. Why should you have to own property in order to vote? People who rent are still citizens. Why should women not be able to vote? etc.

The idea made more sense back then. People who owned land were by and large the educated segment of society, that's what they were going for.

Of course the idea of a secret ballot was also abhorrent as they believed that if you had strong convictions you should be willing to say so publicly.

I find that we have found so many good reasons to extend the vote to more and more people, it seems strange to me that we cannot find a meaningful way to filter out voters who do not take it seriously. Economics today seems like a meaningless way to decide who gets to vote. Education appeals to me a lot more but I still haven't seen a good way to do it that could not also be easily abused.
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The idea made more sense back then. People who owned land were by and large the educated segment of society, that's what they were going for.

I was under the impression that the reason they only let property owners votes was because protecting personal property was very important to them.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
I don't think you should vote if you pretend to be three people.

Or maybe you should just get 1/3 of a vote each...
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"The idea made more sense back then. People who owned land were by and large the educated segment of society, that's what they were going for."

Why should we restrict voting to people with a certain level of education? Again, people without high school diplomas are still citizens.

"I was under the impression that the reason they only let property owners votes was because protecting personal property was very important to them. "

It was a holdover. Wasn't anything that was decided anew when the country was formed.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Why should we restrict voting to people with a certain level of education? Again, people without high school diplomas are still citizens.

Because a high school diploma does not by default imbue somebody with enough knowledge of political affairs to be able to effectively participate in them.

An ignorant person casting their vote causes harm just as surely as a person voting with the intent to oppress somebody else. I've thought about perhaps eliminating party identification from being on the ballot so that people would only vote for people they've actually looked up. The straight ticket option might also warrant elimination.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
quote:
Because a high school diploma does not by default imbue somebody with enough knowledge of political affairs to be able to effectively participate in them.
Tough. As long as the laws affect all citizens, all citizens need to be able to vote on them. That was kinda the whole point of the country, remember? No taxation without representation? And before someone says anything about all those awful people who don't pay taxes, I hope you live in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Women, blacks, immigrants, catholics, Indians, citizens of the country from places like DC and the territories, have all started from a position of not being able to vote and have had to fight to get that right....

Or even potentially from a position where they were explicitly excluded from immigration and essentially barred from owning land.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:
Because a high school diploma does not by default imbue somebody with enough knowledge of political affairs to be able to effectively participate in them.
Tough. As long as the laws affect all citizens, all citizens need to be able to vote on them. That was kinda the whole point of the country, remember? No taxation without representation? And before someone says anything about all those awful people who don't pay taxes, I hope you live in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon.
It isn't "tough" I already said I have yet to see an educational control that was not also terrible in it's potential to exploit. I've also posited two other ideas that I think can only help the integrity of the electoral process.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
quote:
There are some single parents who work two jobs trying to support their kids, and may honestly not have time to devote to things like this.
Simple answer is to grandfather in anyone who is already ages 16 or older. That gives those who are 16 two years to build their volunteer hours before turning 18, and even larger head starts for anyone younger.

I've actually always liked the idea of requiring people to actually give something of themselves to their country/community before being allowed to participate in the decision making of that country/community.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I'd be OK with that as long as the people that are relieved of representation are also relieved of the burden of taxation [Wink]
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
quote:
Tough. As long as the laws affect all citizens, all citizens need to be able to vote on them.
Not so. Currently, we have many citizens who are not allowed to vote - those in prison, and those under the age of 18 come to mind.

As for "no taxation without representation", two points. First, there are those that are taxed without being able to vote (see above). Second, the average of 700,000 to 1 ratio between populace and representatives in the House (the most representative of our governing bodies... Senate seats average a 3 million to 1 ratio) makes the idea of true representation laughable.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Yes, but the former is a problem that can theoretically be handled. Allow prisoners to vote like many other countries in the world and permit those under 18 to not pay taxes (which essentially is the case anyways after you factor in services and tax credits).

The latter is a problem that isn't one that should be exacerbated. There are already groups that are chronically under-represented in your government and allowing that same government to determine which professions are exempt from "service" and which types of "service" are qualified to permit one to vote is potentially nightmarish.

I figure that that allowing those that are barred from voting the choice of not paying taxes a potentially good check and/or balance to the power of being able determine who can or cannot vote.

That way the government cannot arbitrary restrict or promote some forms of "service" without the possibility of alienating its very tax base.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:


yeah. They were pretty bad requirements. Why should you have to own property in order to vote? People who rent are still citizens. Why should women not be able to vote? etc.

This is exactly why we can't get there from here. We have the sense that just by virtue of being a citizen, you should get to vote. You take that away, there will be hell to pay, and it's hard to imagine any situation where the general public would voluntarily choose, through their votes, to deprive themselves of the right to vote.

But if you were starting from scratch, the question might not be "why should only X group get to vote?", but "What would be the effect of having only group X get to vote?"
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
quote:
permit those under 18 to not pay taxes (which essentially is the case anyways after you factor in services and tax credits)
This is impossible.

Unless you plan to find a way to have minors not pay sales tax, gas tax, etc, etc. Income tax is not the only form of tax in this country, after all.

And, if that were the case, would adults who buy things for minors (diapers, food, etc) not have to pay taxes on them? Or would they just give the money to the minors to get it tax free?

People can be citizens and make not one penny of income inside the United States, yet still pay a lot in taxes.

The line is "no taxation without representation" not "no income taxation without representation". The founding fathers were ticked about taxes on stamps and tea, not on taxation of their income.

So, all people who purchase things in this country are taxed - would that mean they all deserve representation?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Unless you plan to find a way to have minors not pay sales tax, gas tax, etc, etc. Income tax is not the only form of tax in this country, after all.

We essentially have that in Canada, just for a different group. If your income is below a certain amount we have a sales tax credit that approximates and refunds about the amount that you would have paid. Its an estimate but its designed to relieve a certain group of having to pay sales tax.

That way you don't have to deal with issues such as others giving money to this group to buy stuff.

quote:
So, all people who purchase things in this country are taxed - would that mean they all deserve representation?
Yes. Aside from tourists from another country (which at least in Canada get a refund based on receipts when they leave anyways), I think that they should.

Edit to add: Of course, tourists wouldn't be citizens anyways and thus wouldn't be eligible to vote regardless. So I guess I should amend that to all citizens who purchase things and are taxed on it deserve representation. (And thats not an iff either (i.e. no taxes !=> no vote either))

[ March 21, 2009, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
If the unemployed are not allowed to vote, then that creates motivation to limit employment. The more unemployed, the greater your own vote.

If the uneducated, or those not sufficiently educated in the civic arts are not allowed to vote, then that creates a motivation to limit education of the masses. That way those going to private, special schools can pass the tests and be allowed to vote.

If those who can not pass a language test are not allowed to vote, this creates a motivation to limit language arts to the preferred.

Basically it seems that there is a sour grapes backlash by those who lost the last election.

"Its not fair. A bunch of people voted and voted not the way we wanted them to. They voted for things that they liked, things that helped them and not us. That is not fair. Instead of trying to work hard and get them to vote for us, or educate them about how our plans are the best, why don't we just stop letting them vote."
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
So, Mucus, what do you think about illegal aliens that are working in the country and paying taxes (sales, property, etc)? Or those on green cards that are in the country legally for extended periods of time and paying taxes?

How about citizens that are living overseas and pay no taxes at all inside the US - do they not deserve a vote because they are not taxed?

Personally, I don't think that "I am taxed, therefore I should have a vote" sits well with me... especially since it can very easily be extrapolated to "I am taxed more, therefore I should have more vote".
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Of course, to quote Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

Though I think the Simpsons showed pretty clearly what disasters would befall us if we were ruled by only the most educated people.

It's an unsolvable conundrum!
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
So, Mucus, what do you think about illegal aliens that are working in the country and paying taxes (sales, property, etc)? Or those on green cards that are in the country legally for extended periods of time and paying taxes?

Personally, I think both should be allowed to vote. Especially in the first case, the current system where they pay taxes and support the American way of life via construction, agriculture, cleaning etc. does seem exploitative and they should have a say.

quote:
How about citizens that are living overseas and pay no taxes at all inside the US - do they not deserve a vote because they are not taxed?
I already answered all of this. Its "no taxation without representation" not "taxation if and only if representation." The former only sets down a bare minimum, all those that are taxed should have a say in government. Any attempt to cross that gap and tax people without giving them representation should be abhorrent but it doesn't mean thats the only group that should be allowed to vote either.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I'm not concerned with how someone votes...
Of course you are. It's right in your first post: you are at least uncertain whether or not people should vote for Democrats if they're receiving any sort of government assistance.

Should cops be allowed to vote?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Potential qualifiers/disqualifiers:
- language

I agree. For starters, must prove the ability to properly use apostrophes and spell.

That will disqualify YOU. [Razz]
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Mucus... interesting your stance on illegal immigrants and voting. How would this be tracked?

How might one be able to tell who are actual illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, and who are merely transient visitors to the US?

Also, what about those who live in border towns in Canada and Mexico who regularly cross the border to shop/visit friends/etc. and pay US taxes? Should these also be allowed to vote?

Again, doesn't sit well with me.

I am okay with the concept of "those who are of legal adult status who have not broken the social contract" being allowed to vote. That would be legal citizens, 18 or older, who are not in prison. (Though I am open to negotiation on what age "adult status" is granted)

I am also interested in the concept of service to the community, simply because I feel voting should be held in higher esteem than it currently is. If something is free, it is taken more for granted. If something requires effort, it is more valued.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:

"Its not fair. A bunch of people voted and voted not the way we wanted them to. They voted for things that they liked, things that helped them and not us. That is not fair. Instead of trying to work hard and get them to vote for us, or educate them about how our plans are the best, why don't we just stop letting them vote."

QFT.

I think this applies to both sides of the aisle for sure, but I've been seeing it in much, much sharper relief from the republican side. Democrats tend to talk a lot of semi-marxist conspiracy nonsense about how (in the worst case scenario) either Bush planned 9/11, or the feds are listening to all your phone calls individually and spying on you (or some other piece of trivia, like it taking a spork 10,000 years to decompose...).

I mean, does anyone remember as far back as 2003, when public dissent over the war and new foreign policy led Rice to say over and over, not "we should listen to the American people, and find out what they think is best" but rather "we should do a better job of convincing the American people of what we think is best." Governments do have to do that, but Republicans seem to take it as written, that what you have to do is "know the answer," and then proceed in a straight line towards your goal with as little visible deviation as possible in order to avoid embarrassment or argument.

And in their outlook, this means that any hiccup or expected deviation on the part of their political opponents is read as incompetence rather than what it is equally likely to be: competence. It does tell you something rather profound about that outlook, when Obama's approval rating going from 63% to 62% (inside the standard deviation) is characterized as a "slide." It makes you wonder what republicans were *really* thinking and how secure they really were when Bush's approval rating dropped steadily from a record high to a record low.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
How might one be able to tell who are actual illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, and who are merely transient visitors to the US?

I'm thinking that they could just register at the polls with something similar to what we do in Canada.
link

Basically, we require two forms of ID, one with a picture and one that forms some kind of connection with an area. At a glance, there are a fair number of combinations that could be obtained by an illegal immigrant, say library card + utility bill or employee card + educational transcript.

That should sort out illegal immigrants that have stayed a while from transient visitors. I may also add even though Canada has such a liberal policy on how to register to vote there is relatively little voter fraud. I just don't think this kind of problem would really be all that significant.

quote:
Also, what about those who live in border towns in Canada and Mexico who regularly cross the border to shop/visit friends/etc. and pay US taxes?
As I noted before, IIRC, visitors that do cross-border shopping can get a tax refund if they present their receipts at the border.

quote:
I am also interested in the concept of service to the community, simply because I feel voting should be held in higher esteem than it currently is.
I agree and I believe that such an attitude/wish is admirable.

However, I also believe that there are always unintended consequences when taking away the vote from certain groups. The governmental power to take away the vote from certain groups that do not wish to perform "service" and the power to define what that "service" is should be countered by some equal check and/or balance.

The loss of tax revenue is my first guess at what such a counter-balance could be and would provide at least *some* motivation for one party to not systematically disenfranchise large sections of the population which may be undesirable to them.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
When I started this post it wasn't my intention to put forth the items as suggesttions, that is why I listed them as "qualifiers/disqualifiers"....To be honest, I was concerned with the outcome of the election. Not so much for the elected but how easilly the people can be manipulated with a promise and a smile. My own mother, a previous pro-life marcher told me she would've voted for Hillary. This only on the basis of sex. Pointing out one's "interest" or "self interest" is a mute point. Clinton is completely opposed to the views and interests of my mother yet she would've voted for her on the basis of sex. I see which side of the aisle cultivates and uses racism, sexism, sexual orientation, income level and on and on. Swap the "Jew" with "rich" and we'd be in 1930's Germany or "communist" with "executive" and we'd be in the 1950's McCarthy era. No one can deny the hilarity of the man on the street interviews with Obama supporters agreeing with McCain proposals. I am a person who is apt to fall for republican lies and there are those who are susceptible to democrat lies. We are a people of short term memory, we'll be reminded of Democrat lies and swing back to a Republican administration, and so the pendulum swings. Our short term outrage is used to manipulate us into agreeing with things. The mob is being manipulated. The 90% tax proposal on bonus money for example, it doesn't only apply to AIG, it applies to recipients of bailout money. The tentacles and strings are permeating society. Conveniently, the $250k limit is there, recieved bailout money and get a bonus you'll pay 90%. They discuss the sum of bonus money but many people received regular bonuses but we have a new tax that will never go away. We all recieved bailout money in one form or another, the state, the corporations or small businesses. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste"...Pelosi, Geitner.

[ March 22, 2009, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
There is also the matter of scale, in that there are approximately 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US, and approximately 200,000 in Canada.

Beyond this, I don't think I agree with illegal immigrants having the right to vote, regardless. If someone wants to vote, they should go through the process of becoming a citizen. If they don't want to be a citizen, they shouldn't have a say in the governance of the country/community.


In a larger view, "who" gets to vote is the least of our problems. Our governmenal system as far deeper problems.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
According to Pelosi last week in SF, Illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are the true "patriots" and INS in "unamerican" for rounding them up.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Malanthrop,

quote:
When I started this post it wasn't my intention to put forth the items as suggesttions, that is why I listed them as "qualifiers/disqualifiers"...
Well, I'll take you at your word, but the things on your list as well as subsequent posts don't really point to your motives as apolitical as you claim.

quote:
My own mother, a previous pro-life marcher told me she would've voted for Hillary. This only on the basis of sex.
What you don't seem to understand is two things. First of all, you don't get to decide what is a trivial or irrelevant thing for people to base their vote on. Well, you do, but ironically only if you can convince a bunch of people to agree with you. The second thing is that you don't seem to understand that a woman getting to vote for a woman for President isn't a trivial or irrelevant thing.

I'm going to make a guess that I suspect many people are thinking right now: I suspect you're a white American male of voting age. Correct me if I'm wrong - or don't respond at all, it's not really my business - but I'm one too, and even I can understand the appeal of voting for someone who for a change is actually from something resembling my demographic.

quote:
I see which side of the aisle cultivates and uses racism, sexism, sexual orientation, income level and on and on.
Both sides do. What, you don't believe that?

quote:
Swap the "Jew" with "rich" and we'd be in 1930's Germany or "communist" with "executive" and we'd be in the 1950's McCarthy era.
That's a gross and possibly even odious exaggeration.

quote:
According to Pelosi last week in SF, Illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are the true "patriots" and INS in "unamerican" for rounding them up.
If she said that, and that's all she said absent context, then she was indeed stupid to say so. But I doubt it. And I don't like Pelosi at all.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I wouldn't want to take away my own mother's right to vote. I'm simply pointing out the shallowness of many Americans and how easilly manipulated they are. Disregarding one's core belief system for the trivial: gender, race, sexual orientation is saddening to me. The True racist, sexist bigot votes because of those reasons alone. I would happilly vote for a fiscally conservative, small government homosexual black woman. What someone does in the bedroom, what color their skin is or what they carry between their legs does not matter to me. I am not at all sexist, racist or homophobic, nor do I play into class envy. I am a small government conservative whow is German, French, Ojibwe with some African American thrown in for good measure. The "true" racist would look at me and see a White guy. And if there were a small government, fiscally conservative homosexual black woman, she would be branded uncle tom and demonized. Conoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell.....oh sorry. Colin Powell shed his uncle Tom label after endorsing Obama. I'm sure for reasons other than race.

Of course both sides play the same game..hence my admition that I fall for Republican lies and the pendulum swinging comment.

[ March 22, 2009, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Disregarding one's core belief system for the trivial: gender, race, sexual orientation is saddening to me
Here's the thing: it's not trivial. It should be trivial, but it's not.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
According to Pelosi last week in SF, Illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are the true "patriots" and INS in "unamerican" for rounding them up.

Somehow, I imagine that even with my dislike of Pelosi, if you showed us the context of that quote it will turn out that she didn't say that at all.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
There is also the matter of scale, in that there are approximately 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US, and approximately 200,000 in Canada.

This is true, but its also a situation that I do not think should be maintained indefinitely and I think that allowing illegal immigrants to vote would gradually help to resolve the situation either by:
1) Changing American immigration policy to a more liberal approach that really does take into account how many immigrants are needed to support certain industries
or
2) Forcing Americans to make a real choice as to whether to deport the illegal immigrants

But the current situation seems to encourage keeping these people in sort of a legal limbo and enriches people such as those that aid in the illegal immigration process or those that rely upon illegal immigrant labour (penalizing those that refuse to do so)

quote:
If someone wants to vote, they should go through the process of becoming a citizen. If they don't want to be a citizen, they shouldn't have a say in the governance of the country/community.
I suspect that most illegal immigrants aren't in that position because they have some theoretical objection to becoming a citizen but because the legal immigration process is too restrictive.

Even legally, I know a fair number of H1B visa holders that wish to become citizens but cannot due to silly immigration policies.

quote:
In a larger view, "who" gets to vote is the least of our problems. Our governmental system as far deeper problems.
Yes.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_ice_video/2009/03/19/194083.html

"the raids must end"...
"kicking in doors and taking mothers and fathers is unamerican"
"you are patriotic"

Our politicians are pandering to the illegal immigrants because of the potential energy of their vote. Their children will be voters, their decendents will be the largest voting block soon. The party that enforces current law will be known as the anti-immigrant party and lose future elections.

Immigration policy should be restrictive. New members of our society should be free of disease, have clean criminal backgrounds and contribute economically to our society. When my son had his two year checkup, the doctor asked if he had been in nursing homes or exposed to illegal immigrants. Questions to screen for exposure to TB, etc. He didn't like my answer, "We shop at Wal-Mart". Doctors are aware of the health risks involved with unscreaned immigration. Diseases we had licked that are prevalent in South America are resurging here. Meningitis, Drug Resistant TB, even Chagis Disease. A disease spread by insects not found in most of America. Ignore the law, ignore the health consequences, ignore the expense for incarceration, welfare, education and medical care. How has it become unamerican and racist to support the enforcement of current law?

[ March 22, 2009, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Our politicians are pandering to the illegal immigrants because of the potential energy of their vote. Their children will be voters, their decendents will be the largest voting block soon. The party that enforces current law will be known as the anti-immigrant party and lose future elections.
It couldn't possibly be at least in part because of genuine ideological differences with your point of view? It has to be a cold-blooded calculating grab for future power?

This is why your implied objectivity and being 'above it all' comes off as being a big pile of crap. I for one am shocked, shocked I say that you'd source newsmax:)

For example, something you're completely not mentioning is that the context of her speech is the recent allegations of ICE...ineptitude, shall we say, in detaining people for deportation. Or that she was also speaking of taking illegal immigrant parents away from their natural-born American citizen children.

And, you know what, I agree with her on both counts. I guess I've been bought off by the Democratic party *rolleyes*

quote:
New members of our society should be free of disease, have clean criminal backgrounds and contribute economically to our society.
I'm right there with you on the first two, but you know what, your third item is just plain stupid. I'm using such harsh language because it's an argument that gets brought up over and over again, as though illegals were skulking across the border just to line up at the welfare office.

They're not.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
You can find the video anywhere. I suppose Newsmax created a CGI Pelosi. The only ineptitude I see is more illegals aren't detained and deported. True, they are pitiful at doing their job. My coldblooded perspective is that we should eliminate the born here and automatically a citizen policy. I spent a great deal of time in the military around the world, being born in other countries does not automatically make you a citizen. Other nations enforce immigration policy. There are many hard working illegals, true. Eleven percent of California's prisons are illegals. They aren't necessarilly lining up at the welfare office but they get free lunch and breakfast at our public schools and use emergency rooms as primary care providers. All I really need to mention as an example of ineptitude and the future of this nation is to put forth California as the pilot program for consolidated liberal political power. That is the future of America, good luck finding someone who wants that. Maybe we should investigate regions and states correlating political power with crime, poverty, unemployment and political corruption. Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, California, DC whatever. Michigan, Oregon, California and DC have the highest unemployment rates in the nation...what do they have in common? The lowest unemployment rates go to Wyoming and North Dakota....what do they have in common? Highest Crime rates....DC, Detroit and Chicago. Lowest graduation rates....Detroit, Chicago. Lets follow Pelosi's and the rest of the D's lead and the entire country will go down the California, Michigan and Illinois path. The leader of hope and change represented the worst area in America. It bounces between Detroit and Chicago's south side for lowest graduation rate, highest murder rate and crime. Oh the 13th district of Illinois had a lot of Hope but the only Change they got was a politician who used them as a stepping stone to higher political power.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You're quite right, we should kick out all the black people.
 
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
I'm pretty much the last person who you can expect to contribute anything worthwhile to a discussion of politics, but even I can see that making it so that only a certain type of citizen can vote defeats the purpose of democracy.

For instance, if you can't vote unless you've finished high school, what does that say? If you don't have a diploma you don't count as being part of society? You don't deserve to have your interests represented? Why not just go back to the days when only white male land-owners could vote?
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
quote:
He didn't like my answer, "We shop at Wal-Mart".
I don't like your answer, either. But that's in large part simply because you shop at WalMart.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Malanthrop,

quote:
My coldblooded perspective is that we should eliminate the born here and automatically a citizen policy. I spent a great deal of time in the military around the world, being born in other countries does not automatically make you a citizen. Other nations enforce immigration policy.
1. Who gives a sh@% what they do in other countries? That's a stupid argument...unless you think it's a persuasive argument to abolishing the death penalty, too?

2. Few if any other countries have both the demand for and the draw towards illegal immigrations we do. Therefore it's incomplete at best to say, "They enforce."

quote:
There are many hard working illegals, true. Eleven percent of California's prisons are illegals. They aren't necessarilly lining up at the welfare office but they get free lunch and breakfast at our public schools and use emergency rooms as primary care providers.
Geepers, might this have something to do with a) illegal immigrants being much poorer than other segments of society, and b) being easier to catch than US citizens?

As for the second part of your anti-immigrant (sorry, anti-illegal *rolleyes*) spiel here, they get that because they're citizens. They should always get that. I'm immensely proud of our country for granting citizenship to those who are born here. As for emergency room care...yeah, they just get here and dial 911 immediately and then wait, right?

quote:
Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, California, DC whatever. Michigan, Oregon, California and DC have the highest unemployment rates in the nation...what do they have in common?
It took me about five and a half seconds to find this: http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

There's a statistic by state for you, malanthrop. Are you willing to eschew this line of argument now?

I'm beginning to think you're simply not worth talking to about this political issue. Your arguments might as well come from Rush Limbaugh's rants, and you're not answering some direct statements made in argument against your points.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I wasn't discussing intelligence, however your statistic was generated from your obscure website. Here's a link to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, US government data for your edification. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t01.htm
Heres one from the Right Wing bastion...NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11601692
Maybe Detroit will break the 25% graduation rate this year [Smile] and it's a good thing our federal govt is going to take tax payer money from good, successful conservative states and bailout the bankrupt govt's of California and Michigan.

I'm discussing unemployment, graduation rates and crime.

I'm sure Massachusetes, Vermont, etc are quite smart. The most extreme examples of classes are found with liberals. You have your very educated, elitist northeastern democrats and you have your inner-city 25% graduation rate, living in crime and poverty democrats. This kind of disparity isn't as prevalent with conservatives. Make fun of the dumb redneck if you like, he has a job and works hard. There are liberal elites and liberal victims. The problem is, they haven't realized who is really victimizing them.

Fugu...I didn't correlate those areas in the sense of the high black population, rather the Democratic control of the govt.

You seem to hold European standards in such high esteem in other areas, socialized health care, capital punishment, etc. Lets be consistent. Since four Democratically controlled states have surpassed the 10% unemployment rate we should embrace European policies. Why not, 10% unemploment is fairly standard for France but at least they have socialized healthcare and a 35 hour work week.

[ March 22, 2009, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Maybe Detroit will break the 25% graduation rate this year and it's a good thing our federal govt is going to take tax payer money from good, successful conservative states and bailout the bankrupt govt's of California and Michigan
Actually it's conservative states that tend to get more back from the federal government than their citizens pay in federal taxes. I'll have to re-check the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that California has been a profit center for the federal government for many years.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Of course California has been a profit center, it has a high population of tax payers. The problem is, high state taxes are driving out the high earning tax payers. They never learn. If the administration announced a six month halt on the capital gains tax and decreased income taxes, this economy and the stock market would jump immediately. Of course that would only put more money in the hands of the evil, greedy rich people who aren't paying their fair share and it would prove voodoo economics really works. They are not interested in really helping the economy. "Never let a crisis go to waste" Pelosi, Geitner. The have a chance to instutute social policy. Even prior to his health care agenda, the Congressional Budget Office determined his spending to be "unsustainable".

[ March 22, 2009, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
European standards

HE'S AN ALIEN FROM EUROPA!
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Of course California has been a profit center, it has a high population of tax payers.
It also has more people to collect benefits yet it still manages to pay out more than it takes back.

I just found some data for 2005 (I'm not sure if newer data is available):
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

California was receiving 78 cents in federal money for every dollar payed in taxes. Michigan was almost break-even, at 92 cents.

quote:
The problem is, high state taxes are driving out the high earning tax payers.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/us_world/NATLCalifornias-Exodus.html

"The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates."

I wouldn't be suprised if Montana had a high influx per capita of federal dollars, lots of federal highways that are in the best interest of the nation, not just locals. Strange which governors are telling the fed to keep the bailout money. Waiting for one with D next to his/her name.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates
OK, that's people. You made a statement about "high earning tax payers" though. Can you show that high-earners are disproportionately represented in those numbers?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm just using common sense. The auto industry is suffering in Michigan and booming in the south. States that are hostile to business and wealth should expect nothing less.
http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/transportation-equipment-mfg-automotive/10604262-1.html

Why didn't these companies open plants in Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana, the historically high auto producing areas?

Remember silicon valley? Look to Austin, Texas and Tampa Bay.

The economic powerhouses of the future, you may laugh: Florida, Texas, Alabama, Georgia. In the end, the redneck areas will win.

Exodus of that specific category may be difficult to prove but a businessman will look for a tax freindly state.

[ March 22, 2009, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Ha!

You talked about graduation rates. I responded. Your response to that? Diverting the discussion away from education issues.

You're not much worth talking to about this. I think I'll stop.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
You didn't respond with graduation rate statistics. You responded with some unsubstantiated and ill defined measure of intelligence. The #1 and #2 factors for consideration in your study are spending on schools and school revenue. Typical, the more money you throw at it, the better it must be, right? I sent you a government site that will spell out actual facts.

Here's another one for you

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-06-20-dropout-rates_x.htm

[ March 23, 2009, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/us_world/NATLCalifornias-Exodus.html

"The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates."

Duh. It was overcast for the 2008 Rose Parade.

(Also, real estate prices were still obscenely high, as were gas prices and rents. But why look at this logically?)
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The government has nothing to do with high cost of living?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
High unemployment rate leads to reduced govt revenue so they decide to raise taxes. I'm sure the tax increase will bring back the jobs and stimulate growth.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
In the end, the redneck areas will win.
But at the end of the day, they'll still be Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Georgia, and still won't be decent places to live. [Wink]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
malanthrop: but why didn't you? If your arguments were at all persuasive about immigration, they would be at least as persuasive about black people.

Of course, they aren't persuasive in the first place. They are racist claptrap. I'm not going to bother going through all of them, but if you would like any particular one of your arguments torn to shreds, please quote it from an earlier post and I will do so.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"We have the sense that just by virtue of being a citizen, you should get to vote."

Why shouldn't we have that sense?
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
The most extreme examples of classes are found with liberals. You have your very educated, elitist northeastern democrats and you have your inner-city 25% graduation rate, living in crime and poverty democrats. This kind of disparity isn't as prevalent with conservatives. Make fun of the dumb redneck if you like, he has a job and works hard. There are liberal elites and liberal victims. The problem is, they haven't realized who is really victimizing them.

Are you for real? This entire arguments is based on the worst type of stereotyping. You're using generalizations and exaggerations I'll even grant you that there are cultural differences between urban and rural poor (I've had personal experience with both types) but in both cases you find examples of laziness and stupidness and in both cases you find examples of hardworking folks trying to make the best of a bad situation.

If you'd like to have a discussion about who tends to be a democrat and who tends to be a republican, we could do that. There are plenty of statistics available out there on current and historical trends. But when you bring that kind of thing into a conversation about who should have the right to vote, it just adds weight to the idea that you want to disenfranchise people who disagree with you.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The point of this was to make people think about why they vote and to explore shallowness of the American voter. I love my mother an used her as an example of someone who would go against everything she believes in just to vote for a woman. I didn't specify if the items listed were either qualifiers or disqualifiers. I just knew this would lead a lot of different directions.

Fugu, you brought up black people. I'm not suprised really, liberals categorize everone into tidy little demographic groups. I see a man where you'll see a black man. But resort to your typical liberal tactic? If you disagree with a liberal you are a racist, sexist homophobe. Liberals can't see past the orientation, sex or race to the person. If you disagree with a persons opinion or viewpoint the liberal percieves your dissagreement to be with the only thing they are aware of, the skin, sex, etc. I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right? I believe that our immigration laws should be enforced...I suppose I hate Mexican people. I am pro life....this makes me a sexist, correct? True, most conservatives are afraid of your accusations and they have proven an effective way to snuff out logical debate. I'm suprised you'd stoop to that so easilly. You don't like me suggesting where liberals have power the economies suffer, crime is higher and education is poorer, prove me wrong. I'm multiratial but I suppose having a diverse background is negated by my conservative ideals. I must be a sellout. Not really because if you looked at me you'd only see a white guy.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You want considerably more than immigration laws being enforced -- you've suggested people born here should not automatically be citizens (which would require the Constitution be amended, btw). That's a quite drastic change. I'll assume you overlooked that instead of lying about what you wanted intentionally.

I guess you don't feel any of your arguments about immigration can stand up to scrutiny. My offer remains open.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Feel free to go through the whole two pages and comment. Suggesting a constitutional change is discriminatory? I suppose you believe the constitutional ammendment in California was discriminatory? I made a comparison to European national laws since you hold them in such high regard in other areas, capital punishment and socialized medicine. Be consistent. You pick and choose the examples you like, pick and choose the laws you like or the parts of the constitution you prefer.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Of course I pick and choose laws I like. I tend to base how I've picked and chosen on things like outcomes and moral beliefs. For instance, if you actually look at Europe's immigration situation, you'd see it is even worse than ours in many places, largely due to populations of immigrants being preserved as second class members of society due to inability to achieve citizenship.

And you've picked and chosen parts of the Constitution you don't like -- assuming you like any of it, that is. You don't like the part that makes those born here citizens. Do you even read what you wrote a second earlier when you write?

I've already told you, I don't feel like going through two pages and countering all of them; that would be a waste of my time. How about you pick one argument you've already posted about immigration and quote it. I don't want you to say that whatever I tackle was just a minor argument. Pick something you think is a really good argument.
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
I like Fugu, so he wins [Razz]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Lets take a look at our immigration situation then. I believe history will view sanctuary cities as one of the most racist policies in this nations history. It is justified with arguments about them doing jobs Americans are unwilling to do. We ignore our own laws so that we can import peasants to do work that is beneath us. We've replaced African slaves with South American Natives. Worst of all, our society actively ignores the laws of our nation to facilitate this. What if our government chose to ignore other laws, like desegrigation or voting rights for blacks and women? Talk about greed, govt greed. Fake social security numbers, numbers that do not have matching names or numbers being used simultaneously in numerous locations are picked up by the IRS. They ignore this because the revenue is coming in. Fail to pay your taxes and they'll come after you with penalties but they wont tell you your number is being used by ten illegal immigrants or go after the ones using it. Dems blocked E-verify, why?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199861,00.html
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I said pick one argument, and it should really be something you've said earlier (unless you're admitting those arguments were worthless?)
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Lets focus on manipulation then:

Our short term outrage is used to manipulate us into agreeing with things. The mob is being manipulated. The 90% tax proposal on bonus money for example, it doesn't only apply to AIG, it applies to recipients of bailout money. The tentacles and strings are permeating society. Conveniently, the $250k limit is there, recieved bailout money and get a bonus you'll pay 90%. They discuss the sum of bonus money but many people received regular bonuses but we have a new tax that will never go away. We all recieved bailout money in one form or another, the state, the corporations or small businesses. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste"...Pelosi, Geitner.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
It's like he put all the conservative talking points in a blender.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html

The crazy right wing NY Times.

Back track here....
-Bailout passes
-Obama admin tells Dodd to insert ammendment allowing bonuses
-Dodd denies it
-24 hours later Dodd admits it (his name on it) and drops the dime on "the administrations request"
-Outrage from public
-Outrage from Obama
-Calls to get the money back from AIG
-Now proposing taxes and limits on ALL executives (not just AIG)
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/fannie_mae.htm
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Read and we'll discuss how this government creation failed and took the rest with it. Ironic it was created during the great depression but hey zero down, and no more red lining.
Remember it went down first and held 40% of American mortgages.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It's like he put all the conservative talking points in a blender.

What's red and white and blue and red and white and blue and red and-- nope, just red.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And now you've picked an argument not about immigration.

  1. Look through your previous posts.
  2. Pick an argument about immigration
  3. The argument must be a single argument, not a bunch of arguments together
  4. Use your mouse to select the argument
  5. Copy and paste the argument into a new post, using "quote" tags
  6. I will then dismantle the argument

 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Here's the one where you suggested we incarcerate black people [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_ice_video/2009/03/19/194083.html

"the raids must end"...
"kicking in doors and taking mothers and fathers is unamerican"
"you are patriotic"

Our politicians are pandering to the illegal immigrants because of the potential energy of their vote. Their children will be voters, their decendents will be the largest voting block soon. The party that enforces current law will be known as the anti-immigrant party and lose future elections.

Immigration policy should be restrictive. New members of our society should be free of disease, have clean criminal backgrounds and contribute economically to our society. When my son had his two year checkup, the doctor asked if he had been in nursing homes or exposed to illegal immigrants. Questions to screen for exposure to TB, etc. He didn't like my answer, "We shop at Wal-Mart". Doctors are aware of the health risks involved with unscreaned immigration. Diseases we had licked that are prevalent in South America are resurging here. Meningitis, Drug Resistant TB, even Chagis Disease. A disease spread by insects not found in most of America. Ignore the law, ignore the health consequences, ignore the expense for incarceration, welfare, education and medical care. How has it become unamerican and racist to support the enforcement of current law?


 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
And now you've picked an argument not about immigration.

  1. Look through your previous posts.
  2. Pick an argument about immigration
  3. The argument must be a single argument, not a bunch of arguments together
  4. Use your mouse to select the argument
  5. Copy and paste the argument into a new post, using "quote" tags
  6. I will then dismantle the argument

Be nice if you could put it back together better, smarter, faster...etc. [Smile]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

Certainly not, but do you see that all three of those qualities are curable?

What do we do about the self serving, dishonest, heirs/heiresses?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I love my mother an used her as an example of someone who would go against everything she believes in just to vote for a woman.
Do you love her enough to try and understand why she would do this, as opposed to insisting she's a dim-witted easily-manipulated sheep?

quote:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.
'Leeches', malanthrop. Uneducated 'leeches'.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

Absolutely not. I take an unwavering "no invertebrates" stance.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
What do we do about the self serving, dishonest, heirs/heiresses?
Nothing. They're not a problem, really. The problem is the mob-swaying McCarthyistic Democratic party tricking all of us into thinking they are.

You know, I don't think I've ever heard anyone who uses 'mob' as a description for the people who was ever worth trusting on political issues.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB]
quote:
I love my mother an used her as an example of someone who would go against everything she believes in just to vote for a woman.
Do you love her enough to try and understand why she would do this, as opposed to insisting she's a dim-witted easily-manipulated sheep?
Unless you're assuming that there are no dim-witted easily-manipulated sheep, why would his love for his mother make her less likely to be one?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Politicians pander to everyone because of the potential energy of their vote. Even if support for laxer immigration is because of that, it isn't unusual or necessarily bad.

Current law keeps changing. Did you know that not long ago it was only a civil offense to be an illegal immigrant in many circumstances? Opponents (edit: not all, but many, including you ) to illegal immigration are not just some law-abiding do-gooders, they actively work to change the laws to make things worse.

I'm fine with immigrants being free of any diseases worth screening for, ditto for clean of major crimes. I'd much more prefer it if we greatly expanded our legal immigration processes so we could easily screen for those things, instead of being so restrictive in them that many immigrants feel the need to sneak across the border, making enforcement of standards very hard. Of course, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime, even before controlling for economic circumstance, so the crime aspect at least isn't too worrying. A good short-term way to deal with disease would be to train organizations already successful in working with poor and immigrant populations to perform free, anonymous screenings. It would only cost a few million dollars, and save many lives. That's not much of a cost to pay since immigration, including illegal immigration, improves the economy. And a lot of that economic improvement is funneled back in taxes, if you read the second link, there: illegal immigrants pay a lot more in taxes than they use in services.

And again, you aren't just for the enforcement of current law, you're for considerably more than that -- all the way up to amending the Constitution (remember the part of it you don't like?) So someone calling you racist isn't necessarily calling the parts of your position just involving current law racist.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right?
For what it's worth, while I don't know you well enough to know whether you're a racist or not, I was 100% sure you were a white guy well before I got a couple sentences below this one where you made it explicit.

Racist? Maybe not. Incredibly protective of your position at the top of the heap? Absolutely.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Unless you're assuming that there are no dim-witted easily-manipulated sheep, why would his love for his mother make her less likely to be one?
In and of itself, it wouldn't of course. That same love should make him try and understand, though, as opposed to scorning and holding in contempt.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Rakeesh:
quote:
Nothing. They're not a problem, really. The problem is the mob-swaying McCarthyistic Democratic party tricking all of us into thinking they are.
If by not a problem you mean that in the same way as an appendix is no longer a problem if it's already burst.

I think we're all in this mess together. But anyway you slice it the obscenely rich have more tools at their disposal to help solve the problem. Taking money they don't deserve is not one of these tools.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
As far as progressive income tax, I like to look at that in terms of how much the tax actually costs a person. Let's say you are poor. If I take 10% of your income, you don't eat. If you are middle class (and by that I mean under 100k a year), then that 10% is your kid's college and retirement. If you are wealthy, then that 10% is vacations and if you are obscenely wealthy, you may not even notice it. So, a flat tax doesn't strike me as fair, because why should a poor person be going hungry to pay their taxes while a rich person isn't even noticing the taxes. The poorer you are, the more money means to you. I am not saying to take so much that the rich are having trouble feeding themselves, but it is hard for me to feel too much pity for the 4% income tax raise.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
BlackBlade,

Irony and sarcasm don't always transfer well in print, heh. I was completely joking.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Michigan, Oregon, California and DC have the highest unemployment rates in the nation...what do they have in common? The lowest unemployment rates go to Wyoming and North Dakota....what do they have in common?
Well, the former group is heavily populated and racially diverse. The latter is sparsely populated and not racially diverse.

On the other hand, California's economy is the equal of more than all the others combined, and the population of North Dakota could fit into just one of a dozen cities in the former group- you might as well take a plum example of a city in California with low unemployment, and compare it to the rest of the places you mentioned to see "what's different."

I can only assure you that the presence of brown people with funny accents is not the chief contributor to statewide unemployment anywhere. It is, on the other hand, a nice bugbear for xenophobes like yourself to kick around.

Forgive me if you are an immigrant, (certainly doesn't sound like you are) but being one myself, as well as an American, I have learned a few things. Chiefly, "doing things the legal way," even in socially and technologically advanced countries, is almost unheard of- and there's a reason. The legal process for entering most countries is so intentionally underdeveloped, so starved of efficient administration and even comprehensible public information, that it is an unmanageable proposition. Even in places like the Czech Republic, where a visa could ostensibly be obtained in three months from any Czech consulate in the US, it is so unheard of (and administratively cumbersome, requiring the translation of myriad documents and certificates and justifications for entry) that most employers simply ask their employees to enter the country as tourists, and apply while living here, which is in most cases flirting with illegality, if not outright illegal. Still, it is absolutely expected.

Don't fool yourself about "the legal way." You're not in the position of someone who is willing and able to do a job someone wants to hire you for, even if you don't speak the local language- and so find yourself flirting with danger simply by virtue of wishing to contribute to society.

I'd just love to see a flesh and blood example of a lazy good-for-nothing Mexican immigrant who came to the US to get their fat kids the precious and sought after breakfast and lunch at public school, and spend all their free time getting their bunions checked at the local ER, while they wait for their welfare check, and sneak their pregnant wives into the country to give birth to citizens of the US. This person is, I imagine, perennially dirty, drunk, napping on cacti, and after 20 years in the country, never learns a word of English.

No, wait, these people work 14 hour days and send all their money to their families, while contributing to the local economy by way of their underpaid labor, rip off check-cashing services, and sales tax. The GALL!
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
If you are going to suggest that people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote, what about the people work who own and work for a companies that receives government contracts, what about all the people directly employed by the government (including the entire military), or anyone who attends or has attended or worked for a University that gets government grants, or all the CEOs who are benefiting from government bailouts.

There is virtually no one in this country that could be considered a neutral party when it comes to government spending. If you are worried about people voting their own pocketbook, welfare recipients aren't even on the radar. Look at the data and you'll see that corporate leaders and the wealthy are far more likely to vote for the party that favors their economic bottom line with "corporate welfare" (i.e. the Republicans) than are the poor and underprivileged.
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

Serioudly, just stop.

You sound like an idiot.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right?
For what it's worth, while I don't know you well enough to know whether you're a racist or not, I was 100% sure you were a white guy well before I got a couple sentences below this one where you made it explicit.

Racist? Maybe not. Incredibly protective of your position at the top of the heap? Absolutely.

Inasmuch as affirmative action was meant to do something pretty different from what it is publicly perceived to do, not liking affirmative action doesn't make you racist.

Now, not liking the *intent* of affirmative action (which, for those keeping score was to make itself obsolete by raising the standard in the pool of qualified black candidates for various things, in order to achieve equal representation *and* similar levels of achievement, *without* artificially enhancing the opportunities of individuals based on race), probably would make you a bit of a racist, or at least a jackass.


Now, that all aside, I just think your probably a racist because of all the ignorant and myopic things you've said here, which I would be surprised to find weren't supported by a good dose of a) ignorance, and b) racism.

You're not the first, and you won't be the last. It's one of those things that no one ever thinks they are. But in truth, everybody is capable of being a little bit racist. You maybe more than most.


Edit: your, "I don't see a black man, I just see a man" line snagged on something for me. I have a black uncle, a middle aged man who's been in the family only about 12 years or so, but who's been at every christmas and thanksgiving since he married my aunt. I adore him, and respect him. I also see him as black. In fact, I think of it as more than a little insulting that one would be compelled to assure my uncle that he was "just a man," and not "a black man." He is a black man- he wouldn't be my uncle if he wasn't, he would be someone else. If you aren't secure in that notion, I wonder how many black people you've actually met in your life.

I know, I know, you'll say you've known lots. I wonder what they thought of you.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

Absolutely not. I take an unwavering "no invertebrates" stance.
That strikes me as rather difficult to enforce. Especially on any border with waterways.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I suppose you'll argue we should bring in disease riddled, criminal, uneducated leaches.

Absolutely not. I take an unwavering "no invertebrates" stance.
That strikes me as rather difficult to enforce. Especially on any border with waterways.
Practicality be damned, think how many problems we would have avoided if we'd never let those killer African bees across the border.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Unless you're assuming that there are no dim-witted easily-manipulated sheep, why would his love for his mother make her less likely to be one?
In and of itself, it wouldn't of course. That same love should make him try and understand, though, as opposed to scorning and holding in contempt.
Do you think that the two really are incompatible, that if you really understand where they're coming from, it is impossible to hold it in scorn and contempt?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Do you think that the two really are incompatible, that if you really understand where they're coming from, it is impossible to hold it in scorn and contempt?
On this particular issue, on the idea that someone who votes for a candidate because they are a woman and so is the candidate? I hesitate to use the word 'impossible' in matters of human thoughts and opinions, but I'd say that yes, in this case it is impossible, or rather that it should be impossible.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Doesn't that means that you believe there are no reasons worthy of scorn and contempt that would cause somebody to vote primarily on the basis of the candidate's gender?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Practicality be damned, think how many problems we would have avoided if we'd never let those killer African bees across the border.

True, true.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
No. I'm talking specifically about this case, about malanthrop and his mother and the situation as he has described it.

Furthermore, voting for someone primarily on the basis of gender isn't even an accurate description of the situation. It's not just the candidate's gender under discussion, it's also the voter's gender.

I'm not a fan of demographic voting, but it's something to take into account. If someone is a member of an underrepresented, economically (among other things) discriminated against group and they choose to vote for someone of that group, in the hopes that that will help uplift their entire group? I'm not prepared to shrug that off as sheep-like manipulation.
 
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
 
At the news of the Obama victory, Colin Powell cried.

A little old lady that I know, who I had never ever heard speak a cross word about anyone said of Obama: "Not even the antichrist could have such a great following by speaking so much without saying anything."

Blessed Martin Luther King JR. said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

("Blessed", because the Catholic Church declared him a Martyr.)

We are a long ways from realizing that dream, I suspect, because people without character profit by the division.

I am going on vacation.... Back in a few weeks.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
No. I'm talking specifically about this case, about malanthrop and his mother and the situation as he has described it.
OK. Nevermind then.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
A little old lady that I know, who I had never ever heard speak a cross word about anyone said of Obama: "Not even the antichrist could have such a great following by speaking so much without saying anything."
*sigh* If she compared the antichrist favorably to Obama, I'm shall we say super-extremely-doubtful that you were actually ever around her very much to hear her say cross words about people.

quote:
We are a long ways from realizing that dream, I suspect, because people without character profit by the division.
There are people without character everywhere.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshki:
At the news of the Obama victory, Colin Powell cried.

. . .from happiness? Because last I checked, Powell endorsed Obama.
 
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
 
ambyr,
I'm glad that I checked back here. Yes, he cried from happiness, relief, a dream come true.

As for the little old lady, I know her well. As you probably know, what a person says only makes up about 7% of communication. The rest is tone of voice and body language. The little old lady did not have a bitter tone but one of perplexity and wonder at the Obama following. This was during the campaign. She simply could not understand his appeal. But then only 7% of communication is what is said. (smile)
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right?
For what it's worth, while I don't know you well enough to know whether you're a racist or not, I was 100% sure you were a white guy well before I got a couple sentences below this one where you made it explicit.

Racist? Maybe not. Incredibly protective of your position at the top of the heap? Absolutely.

I am certainly not at the top of the heap. I live pay check to pay check in a 1100 square foot house with a family of four. But being light skinned, you would assume so? Or maybe only a white, rich person could have conservative ideals. The difference is, I know I've earned what I have and I do not look to other groups for blame where I am lacking nor do I jealously covet the wealth of another man. A wealthy person gives me a job in a wonderful country where an African American can be the President of the United States. It's a great nation where the American Dream is alive and well. Achievement is there for all who work for it. The victim mind set is a means of control. Maybe the whites and blacks should band together against the greedy evil Muslim Americans and Asian Americans, they have a higher average income than whites and blacks. They must be secretly keeping us all down:)
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Oddly enough, it is rarely the top of the heap that is the most hotly contested; it is the position second to the bottom.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I am certainly not at the top of the heap. I live pay check to pay check in a 1100 square foot house with a family of four.
Ask me how I knew this would be your reply. [Smile]

That you don't know what the "heap" is in this case is part of the problem, IMO.

(Did a wealthy person really give you a job? You didn't earn it?)
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right?
For what it's worth, while I don't know you well enough to know whether you're a racist or not, I was 100% sure you were a white guy well before I got a couple sentences below this one where you made it explicit.

Racist? Maybe not. Incredibly protective of your position at the top of the heap? Absolutely.

I am certainly not at the top of the heap. I live pay check to pay check in a 1100 square foot house with a family of four. But being light skinned, you would assume so? Or maybe only a white, rich person could have conservative ideals. The difference is, I know I've earned what I have and I do not look to other groups for blame where I am lacking nor do I jealously covet the wealth of another man. A wealthy person gives me a job in a wonderful country where an African American can be the President of the United States. It's a great nation where the American Dream is alive and well. Achievement is there for all who work for it. The victim mind set is a means of control. Maybe the whites and blacks should band together against the greedy evil Muslim Americans and Asian Americans, they have a higher average income than whites and blacks. They must be secretly keeping us all down:)
Heap-pile. Pile of what are you inferring? Nope, I'm not at the top but I'm proud of what I have and some day I hope to be near or at the top of the heap, yes. I worked full time and was a full time college student. I paid 40k in student loans. I'm completing my MBA. I always study and complete certifications. I came from a very poor family but have worked hard to improve my situation. That's how it works, hard work pays off. I must be greedy because I see no reason to even pay for my own children's college education. Yes, I intend to help them but what is earned is valued. Wait for the government to do it for you and you'll stay exactly where you are. A useful idiot pleading for scraps from the table, angry with the guy sitting at the table. A wealthy person "hired" me for my qualifications, resort to symantics if you like. Not really getting your point.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I'm a little curious how you would describe the "heap" in this case from top to bottom.

Hmmm, both of you.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I assumed financial since this is the current focus. IE "build the economy from the bottom up" or on the other side "trickle down". I view economic situations, maybe his focus was race which wouldn't be suprising since he keeps going back to that. Are you suggesting Whites are the top of society? I'm the supposed racist here and I wouldn't even think of that.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I am absolutely and completely confident that you wouldn't think of that, yes.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Nope, I wouldn't. I sit next to many fine blacks, hispanics, women and filipino's in my office every day. They are paid as much or more than I and they have earned every penny of it. They are qualified "people". My father is a member of the Ojibwe nation and I can't even speculate what race my wife might be (she was adopted). I see a beautiful person.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
So what does the financial heap look like?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Not sure, I'm in the middle somewhere. I can't see the bottom or the top but I'm trying to claw my way through it.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Nope, I wouldn't. I sit next to many fine blacks, hispanics, women and filipino's in my office every day. They are paid as much or more than I and they have earned every penny of it. They are qualified "people". My father is a member of the Ojibwe nation and I can't even speculate what race my wife might be (she was adopted). I see a beautiful person.
Ok, yeah. A picture is forming in my mind.


It's a guy who hints that his wife is mixed race in order to vindicate his own racism.

Edit: And seriously, you care nothing whatever about the race (read family history, heritage) of your own wife? You remain totally incurious on that point? Really? Even if she *didn't know,* which is always possible, I have never met anyone, anyone who couldn't be bothered to hazard a guess.

But actually, how you put it, she might be a mix of German and French, or she might be Nigerian, or she might be polynesian. You're obfuscating why?

"I don't see race" is insulting to people who find their racial heritage important. That's exactly why Stephen Colbert says it all the time. It's a joke. It makes you look like an insensitive tool.

[ March 23, 2009, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
What about those of us who literally don't see race? I once tried to take a psych test to indicate if I had racial preferences and I failed. Part of the requirement was correctly identifying the races of people in pictures and I was extremely inaccurate.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I find nothing more irritating than a right wing fanatic who is arrogantly convinced that he is a self made man and moral superior to anyone who disagrees with him to boot.

The totally lack of gratitude and compassion sickens me.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Firstly: the "heap" isn't just made up of Americans. You're complaining about illegal immigration and affirmative action while, as proof of your modest lifestyle, citing your 1100 sq. ft. home and your office job. (That said, I don't think you deserve this latest dogpile; I don't think you've said anything here that merits vitriol. But I do think that perhaps you're a bit willfully blind to the advantages of your situation.)
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
"I don't see race" is insulting to people who find their racial heritage important.
I don't see how it's insulting.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Because for many people, their race is a foundational portion of their identity. Just like, for many, religion is.

EDIT - I also agree with Mucus. "Insulting" probably isn't the first word I'd go for.

[ March 23, 2009, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I don't know if insulting is the right word, but it definitely rubs me the wrong way. Here's something similar to what I'm thinking:
quote:
So what’s the problem with colorblindness? A lot of people will offer “I’m colorblind” as a symbol of good faith; they’re trying to express that they aren’t actively thinking racist things, and that they don’t see the race of others as a problem. And, as far as that goes, it’s a sweet thought. Really. But it functions for PoC in much the same way as “you’re just one of the guys” and “I don’t think of you as a girl” functions for women. It’s a nice thought, but it misses the point entirely.

I don’t want [my race] to not be a problem for you; I don’t want race to be problematic.

The distinction may seem subtle, but it really isn’t. When a person says “I don’t see color” as a way of saying “your race is not a problem for me,” it casts the problem as race. Race is not the problem, racism is.

link

Thats the first point, the second point is also applicable if you're interested.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Here's my lifelong dilema. To categorize people by their appearance is a dissapointment. I have a father who identifies himself as Native American but those who prefer groups and labels would make me choose to accept or deny either my mother or my father. Lets make it really convoluded, you can see the Afican American in my mother but not in me. You'ld look at my father and probably make the false assumption that he is hispanic. I simply accept that I am an American. I am a person. I'm not here to prove to you that I am not a racist but your accusations will not scare me into not standing by my beliefs. You'll decry even a minority who has my beliefs. Maybe it's the conservative who is the idealist. My cousin is an adopted African American. Growing up he was ridiculed not by whites but by blacks for talking funny. Today he is a doctor. Was his skin color a hinderance? Skin color does not matter but being raised, not as a victim but as a person with goals and values is all that matters. We could delve into illegitimacy rates if you'd like, but I believe this too is a product of government intervention. My cousin is actually a lot like Barack Obama. As you've said, he doesn't put himself out as a black leader. I may disagree with his politics but it is refreshing that he doesn't see race as brightly as you white guilters out there. Jesse Jackson said he was "talking down to black people" why? Because believes that they can achieve and they should pull up their pants. Give me a break. I suppose Obama should deny his white half and I should disregard my native american father.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Did you read the link above?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I am irritated when I need to fill out a self identification delcaration on an affirmative action section in a job application. Which part of me is the taint? Which part of me will the true racist see when I walk down the street? My family knows full well what discrimination is. My german grandmother and my Ojibwe grandfather left Minnesota to escape some of the issues. Where they moved, the dirty Indians weren't allowed in town after dark. I'm suprised my father managed to overcome the man keeping him down.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Are you suggesting Whites are the top of society?
Are you suggesting they're not?

That's not the single defining trait obviously, but if you're white in America you're more likely to have the other necessary qualities that place you at the top of society, yes.

Edit: Also, dude, your racial credentialing isn't impressing anyone.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Now you're stereotyping whites as having "the necessary qualities" of success. Can I infer minorities are lacking the necessary qualities you failed to list? Some might find that a very offensive suggestion. Would you care to list the qualities you speak of so we could explore them. I certainly believe intelligence is equal accross racial lines and I doubt minorities are being denied employment or education based on race.

The credentials wouldn't matter if I were 100% Afican American. I'm sure Michael Steele lacks legitimacy for having the same views as I.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I doubt minorities are being denied employment or education based on race.
You do? Seriously?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I agree that inner-city schools suck but it's the Dems who block school choice programs. My daughter attends a high minority school(about 70%) and she does very well in comparison to the minority students. This isn't the schools fault, we spend time with her studying and impress upon her the importance of being a good student.

When it comes to high school graduates, minorities have at least equal access to college. I didn't qualify for any type of scholarship or grant with a 3.0 gpa. Low graduation rates stop the game there.

Employment is equal. All governments jobs have preference for disabled, vets, minorities, females, etc. Of course this game can be manipulated by opening a company in your wife's name. The perception of discrimination may be present though. It is unlikely I would hire someone to answer the phone who is difficult to understand. But this would go for the hillbilly as well. There are appearance and communication standards in the workplace. I'm sure people might feel discriminated against for tatoos, gold teeth, etc. White Goth scene folks could run into the same situation with tattos on the face, shaved eyebrows or huge holes in the ears.

Unfortunately, with discrimination, perception is reality.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Now you're stereotyping whites as having "the necessary qualities" of success. Can I infer minorities are lacking the necessary qualities you failed to list? Some might find that a very offensive suggestion. Would you care to list the qualities you speak of so we could explore them. I certainly believe intelligence is equal accross racial lines and I doubt minorities are being denied employment or education based on race.
'Stereotyping'? Are you freakin' kidding me?

Even Hollywood is racist. I suspect you'll get a kick out of that.

Some schools are just starting to integrate their dances. There's an education example for you.

Just two funny little examples for ya.

quote:
I'm sure people might feel discriminated against for tatoos, gold teeth, etc.
Or, you know, for having a name like 'Jamal'.

quote:

Employment is equal.

There's no discussing this with you. 'Perception is reality' indeed.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
You should've included my whole quote:
"I'm sure people might feel discriminated against for tatoos, gold teeth, etc. White Goth scene folks could run into the same situation with tattos on the face, shaved eyebrows or huge holes in the ears."

A backwoods town in the Missisipi Delta? I could find you incest articles in apalachia but it doesn't mean incest is rampant. Maybe it's good news, the LAST segregated dance. (not counting how everyone self segregates)

Hollywood probably is racist. Don't disagree with you there. Hollywood is full of right wingers (kidding). Oscars are rarely given to the greatest actor, white or not. It has to be the PC role or maybe you need to die before the ceremony. The Oscars are a joke. Minorities get a lot of comedy and action roles. These roles are not good for anyone looking for an Oscar. If you want to measure the the racial tolerance of the nation, look at ticket sales and ignore the BS of the Oscars. If the Oscar ratings get any lower, they'll cancel them.

[ March 24, 2009, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
"I don't see race" is insulting to people who find their racial heritage important.
I don't see how it's insulting.
Firstly because it is almost certainly not true, and is a politically correct put-on affected for the sake of tolerance, rather than an actual desire for understanding. If you don't acknowledge something (even tacitly) about someone that they themselves find important, and if you do so willfully, for the sake of your own peace of mind, then I think that's insulting. I can't honestly analogize it to any other situation. Perhaps it's a bit like refusing to use feminine or masculine pronouns when talking to co-workers? Not exactly the same to be sure, but similarly odd- an elaborate way of avoiding the baggage of something you are clearly aware of, by pretending that you are totally unaware of it. The simple statement is self-contradictory. Everyone who says "I don't see race," understands racial concepts- you can understand that some common racial concepts are obviously wrong, (most of them in fact) but you must also be aware that some are quite true: black people's ancestors come from Africa, as an example of an obvious fact about race. Pretending not to see that is obtuse; it's a totally meaningless statement.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
I am a person
Person, Troll. Tomato, Tom-ah-to.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
If you want to measure the the racial tolerance of the nation, look at ticket sales and ignore the BS of the Oscars.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to call something BS, you ought not to spout so much of it from your own mouth. I do recall Javier Bardem winning an Oscar last year for a non-politically correct role as a hitman. I recall just a few weeks ago, when an Indian movie with an entirely Indian cast won best picture.

Of course, this is why you're a flaming racist and can't admit it. Because you've already dismissed the "PC" winners of the awards as Hollywood's beard against endemic racism. You don't see the value in those contributions because YOU are the one with the bias. You see everything revolving around a constant, unalterable white center of the universe, and though you call it hypocrisy and a shame- you can't do any better than to bitch and moan about what has been bitched and moaned over for time immemorial.

Now we've entered the part of the thread where you have begun to drop little hints that your racist attitudes, against everyone by the way, not just non-whites, are justified because of your supposed mixed heritage. I'm going to guess though, that you pass as white- just a guess there. Perhaps that fact makes you feel insecure about the racial identity you feel you ought to have, that others seem to. I can sympathize with that- I have a mixed white racial background that I wish was more clear, but I really have little idea of the places and times my family is from. In America, this group of people (which is large) is really shafted when it comes to pre-American heritage- for understandable reasons.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I agree that inner-city schools suck but it's the Dems who block school choice programs.

What they tend to block is voucher implementation programs, on the (somewhat vindicated) grounds that they would strip support of public education away in ways that would, on the whole, reduce the availability of quality education for all.

What they frequently haven't done on the principle of protecting 'school choice' is to stop open enrollment, which is more destructive to educational quality than many other factors.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
If you want to measure the the racial tolerance of the nation, look at ticket sales...
Historically, people have always been willing to accept as entertainers people they would not accept as peers.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm not blind. I see what people look like but I don't carry a preconcieved notion into the situation. I simply do not care what color your skin is. I judge people based on "The content of their character". If your character sucks don't call me a racist. I don't have issues with my identity but I don't like how American society needs to define the individual in this way. If someone asks my background I will proudly tell them but I don't like employment applications that make me choose one. My identity is not tied to my physical features. I was in the Navy with a very sensitive white Mexican. A resident of US from Mexico who joined to help in getting citizenship. He was always agitated and sick of Americans perceptions of race and ethnicity. You only asked him where he came from one time,...... "I'M A WHITE MEXICAN!!" Funny thing is, in Mexico he was accepted as Mexican. huh If you made the mistake of laughing you were really in for it.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
:yawn:

You're not understanding what anyone is saying.

There are positive aspects of racial identity. It is important to some people. It doesn't need to define you, to be part of you.

Forget it. You're too dense for this. Every time there has been a reasoned point made about the issue, you come back flinging a bunch of stupid stereotypes. "Americans are like this! BLABLABLABLA" If you ever lived in another country you'd realize you're doing the same thing you're accusing everyone else of doing. Ironic that you are so adamantly opposed to stereotyping. Isn't that the way it always is though? Good luck.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Orincoro:
"Of course, this is why you're a flaming racist and can't admit it"
" I'm going to guess though, that you pass as white- just a guess there"

Nice quotes. I'm not going to play your game. I suppose you believe Christians are homophobes for believing it is immoral behavior. Resort to personal attacks when someone disagrees with your tripe. Your tactics are old but work against most people. Typical liberal tactic to attack someones integrity when you disagree with them. Very childish really. You in fact are the racist. You see race first. Do you mind your p's and q's around certain people? Their skin color always on the top of your mind, scared you might say the wrong thing. When Eric Holder mentioned, "Americans are cowards about race" he was talking about you. You're pathetic.

[ March 24, 2009, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Typical liberal tactic to attack someones integrity when you disagree with them. Very childish really. You in fact are the racist.
Can you please stop propagating unfair and insulting stereotypes against liberals? These sorts of bigoted ad hominem attacks are irrational and weaken any argument you might be trying to make.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I do have a bias there...I'll try. When you say liberal what do you mean? What about a fiscally conservative lesbian pro lifers? McCain and Leiberman are multipolitical and therefore not accepted by either party. They must really hate the opposing parties since they don't see party and actually consider positions over lables. But maybe they really hate the other party and are just in denial of their bias and overcompensating. Secretly Leiberman is way far to the left and McCain way far to the right but they happen to meet in the middle. Pretty well aproximates Orincoro's race argument? [Smile]

[ March 24, 2009, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So, does your attitude towards Lieberman -- a fiscally liberal hawk -- mean that you've reconsidered your stance on Colin Powell?

-------

BTW, I asked earlier and you didn't answer: did you read the provided link?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I like Colin Powell. Had he run, I would've voted for him. Fiscal Conservatism is most important to me. I have my doubts about his motivation for endorsing Obama. If he came out and said, "It's about time we had a black president" I would respect him for it. His interview wasn't very convincing either, fairly shallow points about good communicator and uniter, etc. If there every was a R that could reach accross the aisle, it was McCain. As I said earlier, at least my mom had the courage to admit why she would've voted for Hillary.

[ March 24, 2009, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I always snicker when I hear republicans talk about being fiscally conservative when Reagan, Bush I and Bush Ii consistently ran the highest budget deficits the US has ever seen. Under Clinton, we actually had a budget surplus by the time he left office,

Bush II had a budget surplus when he entered office and a robust economy for most of his tenure in office and yet ran up enormous debts. A fiscal conservative would have raised taxes to pay for the war on terror up front rather than hiding the costs and passing them on to future generations.


Yes, Obama is proposing a huge budget deficit right now, but he has a huge mess to clean up which is not of his own making. Most economic models suggest that it is actually desirable over the long run to have budget deficits during times of deep recessions, like the one we are in now, and run budget surpluses when the economy is robust. I'll bet you that if Obama serves 2 terms, the budget will be balanced by the time he leaves office.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm not a Republican.
I am not happy with the Republican party either. Justifying one wrong with another is not a valid argument. Clinton was good with the government, I wish he could run for a third term. This administration's spending goes way beyond addressing the economic problems we're facing. They are using the economic crisis as an excuse to pass programs that have little to do with the economy and have been rejected by the public in cooler headed times. If they cared about turning the economy around, they would suspend income taxes and capital gains taxes for six months to a year. It would cost less than the bailouts and the public investment would turn it around quickly. They want a govt solutions to government created problems. They are pushing capitalism has failed message. The bailout started with the sell of TARP but they didn't buy the Trouble Assets as promised to the American people. They've sprayed money around with plenty of strings attached and now are returning to TARP. Another 1 trillion to buy troubled assets. Had they done what they promised the public in the first place, this would be turned around already. But "never let a crisis go to waste"

[ March 24, 2009, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
malanthrop: I don't think anybody here even self described liberals believe that now that a Democrat is in office everything will be just peachy. I mean this to a degree has me worried as I barely have any idea what "troubled" means. I hope that if such a power is deemed necessary it will comes after serious consideration and that a some sort of time or economic limit will be placed on it so that it expires.

But the argument that "big change" is not necessary and that cool heads must prevail rings fairly hollow after some of the shady dealings of the past 8 years. If we suspended income and capital gains taxes I think the negative repercussions would be positively astounding. Most economists openly say that in a recession the government should run deficits, while allowing for surpluses in times of plenty. We've been tossing our money down the toilet for years now with war, I would be almost giddy with excitement if I knew a few billion dollars had instead been diverted to our public schools, or to scientific research. President Obama seems intent on fixing education, health care, alternate energy research and the economy, while trying to scale things back in Iraq so that Afghanistan can hopefully be salvaged. I don't expect him to get it all done, but none of those things strike me as 1984ish. Instead, that strikes me as very domestic based investing. I sincerely hope we stop "nation building" and get our own house in order.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The goverment has more to blame than the banks. They kept lowering and lowering the prime rate to rediculous levels. Fannie and Freddie, govt creations, were directed by the govt to package up these risky loans. I remember congress pushing the banks to lend to everyone under threat of SEC action. Throwing around terms like redlining and convincing the American people that home ownership is a right for everyone with zero money down. Gone the days of lending to people who saved their money for the purpose of buying a home. FHA raised the percentage of income allowed for mortgages. It sounded good, got a lot of poor people into homes who previously wouldn't qualify. Good intentions gone bad. Greedy flippers were caught as well, no sympathy for them from me. When they talk abouth "the banks" they are talking about THEIR bank. Banks created by the government that held 40% of all US loans, the riskiest loans to boot. It was the collapse of the govt that created this mess and now the govt offers the solution. It was govt interference, best intentions and all that caused this mess. Sure bankers got big bonuses. Focus on the million this executive got while they dump Trillions down the drain. I've traded five pennies for a dime before. Google Fannie/Freddie bonuses. Barney Franks boyfriend was there when the Bush admin warned him in 2003 about the problems. Elmer Fudd up there denied any problems and now screams for names.
Where's the money?
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2083881/posts

Dodd #1 Obama #2
Conveniently the man who is responsible for oversight of these institutions and the president of the United States.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
This administration's spending goes way beyond addressing the economic problems we're facing. They are using the economic crisis as an excuse to pass programs that have little to do with the economy and have been rejected by the public in cooler headed times.
You have a habit of stating things as established fact when in truth they are highly controversial. Several award winning economists have concluded that the spending Obama has proposed is far too little to adequately address the economic crisis. While this is not a consensus position, there is no consensus among economists on this issue and certainly no general reason for you or I (or anyone else who is not a Ph.D. level expert in Macro-economics) to conclude that the economists who think the stimulus package is too large are more likely to be correct than those who think the stimulus package is too small. The proof will ultimately be in the pudding, but even then I'm quite confident that even if economy is booming in a year and the budget it balanced by the end of Obama's first term, Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter will claim it is despite Obama's mismanagement not because of it.

Furthermore, I should add that many of the projects targeted by the Obama stimulus package are intended to improve major infrastructure problems that are the result of decades of neglect. While I'm sure that there are other ways to stimulate the economy, these projects will both stimulate the economy and address critical problems with failing infrastructure -- killing two birds with one stone. I see this as a great idea. Those who are critical of it are largely in complete denial about the sorry state of infrastructure in this country and would rather wait until every bridge collapses than do any preventative maintenance.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
I suppose you believe Christians are homophobes for believing it is immoral behavior.
I think *some* Christians are homophobes. I think that the majority of church positions against homosexuality are based in homophobia. Perhaps some of you just go along with no particular reason... but that is just a passive perpetuation of homophobia.

quote:
Typical liberal tactic to attack someones integrity when you disagree with them. Very childish really. You in fact are the racist.
Are you having us on? Is this a prank?

quote:
When Eric Holder mentioned, "Americans are cowards about race" he was talking about you. You're pathetic.
That you don't realize that you're now using my characterization of your position against me, despite the fact that I feel quite the opposite about race, is both funny and disturbing. Look back at what I've said. I believe you are the coward when it comes to race. I believe you are the one who pretends to be "colorblind." I believe I'm the one who said he is not afraid to acknowledge race.

I believe I'm the one who also said that claiming you are "colorblind," that you "don't see race," is a logical fallacy. You are pretending. Now, amazingly, you are calling me the PC coward, out of touch with what race means. I believe you're the one who has said he doesn't acknowledge the importance of race to others. How are you familiar with the concept of race, if you have no experience of it? Of course you are, you're just self-deluded.


Nice to hear that you're also homophobic.

You started off the thread talking about how the people you don't agree with could excluded from civic duties and participation. Now you try to come off as high minded and above the fray, when you clearly have no clue either how you sound, or what in hell you're talking about. There's a reason idiotic ideas like yours have been slowly plowed under in the last two centuries. They're dumb, and they don't work. Kind of like your posts.

And I'm out.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Are you having us on? Is this a prank?



That's certainly been my assumption.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
That's certainly been my assumption.
Serious or prank, it's not worth the time interacting.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
No, you're right, I shouldn't. I'll stop.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Are you having us on? Is this a prank?


That's certainly been my assumption.

It's sort of a subway mosaic, ancient and crumbling, overlaid with a fresh uberpainting of graffiti. Or a veiny brash new-world bleu grafted onto the rootstock of a pungent, perhaps unduly artisanal cheese--Pont l'Eveque?

Catchy!

Thumbs up! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm pointing out your self denial. You can't separate the stereotype from group. I will tell you I am opposed to affirmative action. On this basis you will automatically brand me a racist and refuse a logical argument about the matter. I also believe homosexual behavior is immoral and for that you brand me a homophobe, bitgot. I also believe that alcoholism is bad. I have a gay neighbor, we get along just fine. He's a nice enough guy and one of my favorite neighbors. His yard is great, he doesn't throw loud parties and he really cares about his home. There are straight-white people living in my neighborhood I would gladly trade for gays like him. (but secretly in my head I'm repeating queer over and over,..... right? [Smile] ) I don't care what he does in his house but if he had a gay pride parade in front of my house I might be bothered. One of my neighbors drinks from the moment he wakes up until he passes out, every day. I think this is wrong but I really like him. The Jamaican guy on the corner is always going on and on about N##gers, he must hate black people. My neighborhood is extremely diverse and I love it. Surround me with black homosexuals who care about their homes and go to work everyday and I've found a home for life. I live in florida and I can't stand the trailer trash, child abducting whit pedophile meth heads living in Polk county. I must be prejudice agains whites that live in Polk county. The world is little more complicated than your coalition of groups. If someone is opposed to what you stereotypically classify as a position common to a specific group, you automatical assume them to be opposed to or prejuduced against that group. Remember, there are minorities who would completely agree with me and they aren't sell outs for doing so.

[ March 24, 2009, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
You need to learn how to use paragraphs. I think you're racist against paragraphs. Think of the paragraphs!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Let me ask you again: did you read the provided link?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I will tell you I am opposed to affirmative action.
Geeze, who asked? Whoever it was needs a good thumping!
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Teshi: I'll work on my grammar. I'm usually in a hurry.

Tom. I didn't check the link, repost and I'll take a look.

Rakeesh: You didn't ask but I'm being accused of racism and homophobia for having a position.

I'm sure it wont be in my lifetime but some day we will be blended into a homogonous race and we'll be able to get past the surface and discuss the issues. Some of you may not believe it, but if my daughter brings home a fine young minority, I'll be proud. If she brings home a white kid with dreams of being in a rock band or black kid who wants to be a rapper, I'll dissaprove equally accross the board. Besides, mixed race people are very attractive. Genetic superiority comes with genetic diversity.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
You didn't ask but I'm being accused of racism and homophobia for having a position.

Ha! That's actually true.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
http://magniloquence.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/race-relations-101-colorblindness/

Read that, then let me know if you understand why people don't think that "colorblindness" should necessarily be the final word.

If not, I'll try to elaborate.
 
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
 
Malanthrop-You just used the words genetic superiority. I wasn't sure if you were referring solely to looks, or to actual biological capabilities, so I'll address both.

If you were only referring to looks, you nonetheless used "genetic superiority."

Yes, it has been proven that genetic diversity tends to lead to specimens better able to adapt to their environment.

On this logic, mixed race could be stated to mean "genetic diversity", and therefore, "genetic superiority", but this is false logic, which I'll explain here shortly.

This doesn't mean mixed race has anything to do with genetic superiority of looks, because attractiveness is objective. Only certain features, for instance, like facial symmetry and physical fitness are naturally proven indicators of "genetic superiority", because they tend to indicate better health, at least in nature. This is an applicable indication of beauty as being genetically superior. (I"m not necessarily saying this.)

Mixed race is not. You were insinuating that a certain race, or mix of races, is genetically superior to others.

I don't agree with this. When we become a "homogenous" race, as you say, we may have certain biological factors that are improved, but, fact of the matter is, ugly, out of shape, weak, small, "genetically inferior" people will still continue to breed, so long as our modern society of equality that, generally, tends to frown upon killing, takes the "survival of the fittest" out of the equation. So, I doubt we're working towards any master race if all forms of "genetically inferior" people continue to breed.

Back towards your mixed race people being attractive sentiment. This is an opinion. Some people may find mixed race people to be unattractive. Some people may prefer people of only pureblood, or of a certain race. I'm white, and I personally find people of all races to be equally attractive in their own ways.

If you find mixed people to be more physically attractive, this is totally fine. That in itself is not at all racist-just personal preference, just as one may prefer someone taller or with longer hair or blue eyes.

But to say that being of mixed race makes someone genetically superior is racially close-minded. I'm not going to accuse you of being a racist, because I haven't done enough research to make that extreme accusation, but at least that statement is close minded and discriminatory to an extreme extent, just not well-thought out, and based on false logic.

I hope this was decently coherent. If you have any questions, please let me know.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
True, it is my opinion that mixed race women are very attractive.

I suppose making a distinction between appearance and heartiness. I would argue that genetic diversity is superiority yet this smacks of supremacy. I've had great mutts and purebreads with hip displasia and diabetes.

If I were more Native American I might have better teeth. If I were more African it is possible to inherit cicle cell and have a natural defense against Malaria. Having a child with an Asian could break the cycle of cancer rates in your family. Genetic purity is a gathering of genetic defects. Obesity, cancer, high blood pressure, alcoholism, cholesterol levels, etc. I did not insinuate supremacy rather diversity leading to genetic strength and fewer defects.
 
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
 
That's true.

I had no problem with your personal preferences for what you found attractive-personally I'm very attracted to Nords, African Americans, and Native Americans, respectively, more than other races.

That's just me.

It was just the way that you stated it that sounded a tad supremacist. And I believe at some point you mentioned your being mixed race (correct me if I'm wrong), so there was always that flip side to the coin.

I hope all mix-ups are forgiven?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Paragraph breaks =! grammar
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I am too European to be superior, alcoholism, high blood pressure and cholesterol plague my family. Not quite diverse enough.
 
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
 
All races have their own genetic deficiencies. I don't think there's any race that is better adapted to the world at large-just certain climate.

A black person would have a greater protection against skin cancer and local diseases in Africa, then a white person would, just as a white person might be better suited to Northern climates of Europe, and immune to diseases native Africans didn't already have biologically.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that blacks actually get *more* skin cancer than whites. I think the darker pigment only really protects against sunburns.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
When my ancestors left Africa for Europe, they weren't white. I wonder how long it will take for African Americans to turn white or white south africans to turn black. Ever notice from South America to Alaska, the natives gradually become more Asian in appearance. It is one big disfunctional family.
 
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
 
Evolution is an ongoing process...races are changing. The "minorities" of today, won't look anything like the "minorities" of tomorrow.

Apparently,in 1000 years, the average height will be 6-7 feet in the world. Not terribly surprising, also not related, though.
 
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
I'm pretty sure that blacks actually get *more* skin cancer than whites. I think the darker pigment only really protects against sunburns.

Um, no...
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Even when everyone looks the same, other social categories of us vs them will be created. I don't deny prejudice but I believe the majority strife has little to do with skin color. What we call racial strife is a clash of cultures and the cultures clashing are not universal within the racial group but often self attributed to the group. Not sure if that makes any sense. No one wants to be stereotyped but we misinterpret the justified distaste for segments in our society as a condemnation of the entire group. I should be able to say I think a person looks like a clown, tripping over his shoelaces, holding up the front of his drawers with his underwear hanging out. My children don't need to see another person's underwear. Yes, a lot of African Amiricans wear this style but I find it just as rediculous on a white guy. This statement might offend some black people and be interpreted as racist but from my perspective it's not. I knew a guy who had a F%%% You tattood to his neck. He loved to fight and that tattoo started a lot of fights for him. It always started the same, "What are you looking at,....you got a problem."
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
My children don't need to see another person's underwear.
They'll live. Make sure you don't ever take `em to the beach, though!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
This statement might offend some black people and be interpreted as racist but from my perspective it's not.
I'm pretty sure that the whole problem of racism has quite a lot to do with an (in)ability to look at an issue from something other than your own perspective.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
I'm sure it wont be in my lifetime but some day we will be blended into a homogonous race and we'll be able to get past the surface and discuss the issues.
This goes to show how much you know. We have never been, nor is there any strong evidence that we ever will be a homogeneous people.

For some context (experts in the area feel free to correct, I only studied this in a few courses as an undergrad): humans are genetically closer to one another, and as a species, than any other primate species known to exist. We are so close, genetically, that the differences present in our appearances could be achieved in less than 100 generations (3,000 years).

The idea of "racial groups," is more political and cultural than it is genetic. By analogy, Slavic languages in central and eastern Europe exist on a spectrum. They are not discrete languages, but instead are often commonly intelligible with their neighbors. The relationships between the languages reflect a fluid history, rather than one of segmentation and individual development. We find that ethnic groups have histories closely mirrored by languages, and that ethnic groups are not discrete or individually evolving.

By working under the (now outdated) assumption that the races represent substantive genetic differences, you extrapolate logically that the combination of races will produce a homogeneous group. While that may be technically possible, it would require putting all modern humans in the same place together- but that isn't how we work. There may be a more homogeneous culture in the future, but even that will not take the form often imagined. We exist as recognizable racial groups precisely because of the cultural connotations that race has. Race "is" culture- it is the outward sign of a genetic history. As long as people live apart from each other, pursuing different lives, we will always have racial characteristics. Those characteristics don't mean very much about an individual- only their genetic history.

So don't tell me it isn't important that you can look at a black person and know that their ancestors weren't born in Russia. That tells you something about the person. And if you come to find out they *were* born in Russia, that also tells you something important. These things don't have to define us, again, but they do exist, and they ought not be ignored. There's nothing wrong with race- only the fallacies and folk wisdom of racism. Those fallacies you are unknowingly perpetuating, about a subject you obviously don't understand.


And yes, believing that homosexuality is immoral is tantamount to homophobia. I'm glad you're nice to your neighbor, and I'm glad you keep your bigotry to yourself irl.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
believing that homosexuality is immoral is tantamount to homophobia
I don't agree with this, BTW. I think it cheapens the definition of "homophobia" quite a bit to use the word in that way.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I'm with Tom on this. People can be wrong about this without being phobic.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
What would you call it then? A person who looks at someone, and believes that their lifestyle is immoral. Are they not afraid of that, so not "phobic?" I said it was "tantamount," which my trusty Oxford English tells me means "equivalent in seriousness to." Think that it is equivalent in seriousness. It's true that the two things don't jive exactly in connotation, but I'd like to hear a better expression of my thought- because I don't have one.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
I don't know Orincoro, I think with advances in transportation and internet technology, race will disappear eventually.

The world is getting smaller and smaller at a seemingly exponential rate. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years you could go on a date with someone in a different continent (perhaps even spend the night with them), and be back in time for work the next day.

With the internet growing and growing, I'd be surprised if a common language didn't emerge (or if English becomes the default), so I don't think that will remain a barrier for long.

[ March 25, 2009, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
A person who looks at someone, and believes that their lifestyle is immoral. Are they not afraid of that, so not "phobic?"
I think it's an abuse of the connotative power of the word to apply it in that way. I mean, you could just as easily say that I'm "murderer-phobic," since I'm afraid of murderers; or "investment-banker-phobic," since I disapprove of the lifestyles of investment bankers.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
I don't know Orincoro, I think with advances in transportation and internet technology, race will disappear eventually.

The world is getting smaller and smaller at a seemingly exponential rate. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years you could go on a date with someone in a different continent (perhaps even spend the night with them), and be back in time for work the next day.

With the internet growing and growing, I'd be surprised if a common language emerges (or if English becomes the default), so I don't think that will remain a barrier for long.

I used to believe that until I lived in countries that don't have English as the first language (Spain and and Czech Republic). I've never been convinced that advances in travel are going to mean that there will be one common society. I think travel will get easier, but so will staying at home. We may come to value more and more our known and knowable spaces. We may, in the future, choose to travel less and less. It's a bit hard to predict.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
The internet hasn't even been around for one generation, never mind what's coming next, and then what's coming after that.

So long as no calamity puts us back to the stone-age, I think we're in for some drastic changes.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
But as you can see by observing history, the trajectory of those changes is unpredictable. There's never been an indication that the whole world would actually be interested in adopting a single language, and no evidence to suggest that maintaining one would be feasible even with better systems of communication. I can see it, I'm just skeptical.
 
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
 
I think that there could likely be a major world language, or at least it could be reduced down to several major languages.

Actually, the vast majority of the world has less than ten different languages, out of thousands, as its major ones, so I think one language becoming predominant, and the legal and political precedent, is highly likely.

Even if it's only used in politics on the world stage or in most international publications, with local residents speaking their native language, it's influence would be "tantamount" (teehee) to that of a "world" language, although the likelihood that other languages would disappear entirely is preposterous.

New languages will even be created-local lingo, to the extent that it becomes a separate dialect entirely.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Personally, I think that by the time we get to the point as a species that humanity has completely blended culturally, physically, and linguistically, we'll have started to spread out into all sorts of extraterrestrial places, where promptly new races, languages, and cultures will begin to form.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
That's the conclusion I would leap to as well. As soon as things are solidified into one mass, they immediately wander again, for lack of anything better to do.

People are driven by conflict- and conflict will always be represented in its purest form. So if you have one world government, and no wars, you start out settling conflicts in the way that you have set out, and slowly you segment the populations back to representing their own interests. That's why war will probably never end.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Our perceptions are limited by our lifespans. A "very long time" in comparison to what? The planet ia at leat 4 billion years old. The oldest evidence of humans is about 25 thousand years and sixty years ago it was exremely rare to mix races in this country. A couple generations from the beginning of acceptance of mixed races in America. In two hundred years or ten generations we will definitely be a lot closer to homogonus.

I believe it is a good thing. At least mixed race people aren't viewed as oddities anymore. IMO they are very attractictive and level headed individuals in regards to racial relations. It is possible when "pure" this or "pure" that becomes increasingly rare, their supremasist attitude will only grow. Obama will no longer be the first black president, rather the first half black president. Accusations of progress only for accepting a tolerable level of color in the man. Racism may get more extreme as pure races dwindle.
 
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
 
Malanthrop, I agree on the "pure race" part of your post, but not the "levelheaded individuals" parts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they aren't level-headed individuals, not at all, I'm just saying it's hard to put an entire "group" of people into a role like that.

It's was a positive one, but nonetheless a jump. It'd be like saying all Asians are intelligent, by insinuating that they're more intelligent than other races, or that because a large majority of successful figures in sports are black, they're better at sports than all other races.

Said with good intent, but due to lack of details, it was said so seemingly at the expense of others, although I'm sure that wasn't your intent.
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Our perceptions are limited by our lifespans. A "very long time" in comparison to what? The planet ia at leat 4 billion years old. The oldest evidence of humans is about 25 thousand years and sixty years ago it was exremely rare to mix races in this country. A couple generations from the beginning of acceptance of mixed races in America. In two hundred years or ten generations we will definitely be a lot closer to homogonus.

In the past, geographical barriers and slow travel/migration kept the races apart. Today, here in the United States, the only things keeping the races apart are cultural norms. I don't know if when or how the blending will occur, but I am inclined to agree that it will happen.

quote:

I believe it is a good thing. At least mixed race people aren't viewed as oddities anymore. IMO they are very attractictive and level headed individuals in regards to racial relations. It is possible when "pure" this or "pure" that becomes increasingly rare, their supremasist attitude will only grow. Obama will no longer be the first black president, rather the first half black president. Accusations of progress only for accepting a tolerable level of color in the man. Racism may get more extreme as pure races dwindle. [/QB]

I have to disagree that mixed race people are accepted the way you describe. I've known mixed race people and they still seem not to know where they belong in a world that still places a lot of importance on cultural heritage. It's interesting that you brought up Obama -- if you haven't read it, you might want to check out "Dreams From my Father" from the library and give it a chance. I read it recently and loved it. A lot of it has to do with Obama's experience with race and discovering his past, beginning with his white family and then moving on to his black family.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
A couple generations from the beginning of acceptance of mixed races in America. In two hundred years or ten generations we will definitely be a lot closer to homogonus.

Do you really think humanity will still be on this planet alone in two-hundred years?

quote:
Racism may get more extreme as pure races dwindle.
There aren't any pure races now.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
My husband is mixed race as is my brother in law. Both have a lot of questions about where they fit into the world. My husband's problems also include that his father did not teach him their native language, so my husband can't even talk to half of his extended family. He does pass for white, and he has actually had people tell him there is no way his father was "pure." My brother in law also talks about not fitting in. He does not pass as white, but culturally is white yuppy (that webpage stuff white people like is perfect for him). So, my anecdotal experience with mixed races lines up with Christine's.
 
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
As an anthropologist I feel I have to point out that race is a social construct. There are no biological races in humans.

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
The oldest evidence of humans is about 25 thousand years

Try 200,000 years ago.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I understand the perception. I did not intend to make a judgment call or stereotype all people of mix race backgrounds. I was commenting on the advantage of them having one foot on each side of the fence. I wouldn't disagree that the perception of some towards them remains bias. There are historical example of slave masters enslaving their own children because they were half black.

My hopeful projection for the future is that the mixed race individuals will become the majority and illustrate humanity over race. Understandably there are self identity issues since our current society places so much emphasis on lineage and the expectations associated with it. The expectations within the group and outside the group are the source of the issues. The outside expectations are the obvious stereotypes we commonly refer to but internal change is needed as well. A white coach asking a black kid if he is going to play basketball, external example. A black kid who sounds white and listens to country music or a white kid who has embraced Hip Hop Culture and Raps, both may receive hostile treatment for deviating from expectations within their group.

The external change is focused on but the internal change is often ignored. If internal stereotypical expectations are not going to be addressed then the only other solution is to breed it away. My point is, the internal and external expectations placed on Obams, Tiger Woods, etc are somewhat muted. The expected behavioral characteristics are more varied and accepted.

My in-laws could not have children and adopted a white, a Korean/White, a Hispanic and an unknown mix. They are all secure in their identity and look at their white parents as mom and dad with self identities apart from there physical lineage. The Korean has expressed to me issues with being accepted by other Koreans more so than any issues with majority expectations. We are happy to address half the racial issue but attempts to address the other half are usually met with scorn. Bill Cosby is one example, who was ridiculed for letting the "barber shop talk" get to the public. Obama has said the same things and was received better. Where his words more acceptible because he can speak from both sides?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I did not intend to make a judgment call or stereotype all people of mix race backgrounds.
Geeze, you have to make statements like that a lot.

I wonder why that is?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Rakeesh, thanks for illustrating my point. That's the problem. Everyone needs to watch out so not to leave a slight hint of offense to an oversenstive person. "What do you mean, you people?" is a good example. I MEANT no offense, I apologize for your hypersensivity.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Everyone needs to watch out so not to leave a slight hint of offense to an oversenstive person.
That's one self-serving explanation.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
... I think travel will get easier, but so will staying at home. We may come to value more and more our known and knowable spaces. We may, in the future, choose to travel less and less. It's a bit hard to predict.

Indeed.

Somewhat counter-intuitive, but we can see that as globalization flattens out income disparities between nations, sure tourism increases, but immigration drops right down. We've already seen it with places like Japan, Hong Kong, China, as areas that are poor become rich the urge to immigrate to North America is drastically reduced.

The estimate of a couple hundred years is pretty optimistic. Quebec has practically been surrounded for a couple hundred years by English-speakers and it persists. Hong Kong was occupied for a bit less but with very strong economic incentives to pick up English, but the results aren't all that drastic language-wise. The first Emperor of China unified the written language more than 2000 years ago but even with that advantage, the first steps towards unifying the spoken language only took place in the 1950s and are still going on with much help from a strong interfering government. Ironically, democracy may even slow the process. It has in Hong Kong anyways.

This can take a very long time and as Rakeesh rightly points out, big game-changing events that splinter cultures can happen fairly quickly.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Everyone needs to watch out so not to leave a slight hint of offense to an oversenstive person.
That's one self-serving explanation.
Anyone can pick and choose a particular sentence from a statement and twist it to make a point. Here's what I said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rakeesh, thanks for illustrating my point. That's the problem. Everyone needs to watch out so not to leave a slight hint of offense to an oversenstive person. "What do you mean, you people?" is a good example. I MEANT no offense, I apologize for your hypersensivity."


We can keep beating around the bush and never get to the issues. Political correctness not only protects the offended from being insulted, it is a barrier to overcoming the problems that exist in our society. If a couple has problems, ignoring them to avoid a fight is not the answer. Keeping the "we don't talk about that" issues stifled will never solve the problem. More often than not both parties have contributed to the ongoing problem regardless of who started it.

Yes, whites enslaved blacks, Spaniards killed indians, the Ojibwe drove the Sioux into the great plains, Germans killed Jews, British mistreated Irish, Hutus committed genocide against Tutsis and one spouse may cheat on the other. There are numerous examples of bad human behavior. At some point the original offender expects either forgiveness or the acknowledgement of irreconcileable differences and divorce. Divorce may work with marriage but not with society. I doubt we want to go back to segragation.

[ March 26, 2009, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Anyone can pick and choose a particular sentence from a statement and twist it to make a point. Here's what I said:
One thing you can (continue) doing is insist that when lots and lots of people are telling you you're wrong or at least that there's something wrong with what you're saying, they're all deluded and you're the one being rational.

You're a hack. You don't talk near pretty enough to talk at people around here the way you make a habit of doing.

Edit: There is one thing I'd find interesting to read.

quote:
At some point the original offender expects either forgiveness or the acknowledgement of irreconcileable differences and divorce. Divorce may work with marriage but not with society.
Setting aside the point that it's pretty funny for the offender to say, "Yeah, we screwed you over big-time, but now you need to either get over it or get out," let me ask you: what offenses have blacks committed against whites in this country?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The "funny thing" is I am not the offender. I've never owned a slave, forced a Jew into a gas chamber or hacked a Hutu to death with a mechete. On top of that, I have no inherited guilt since none of my ancestors committed any of those offenses either. To be completely accurate, the vast majority of the people you hold accountable for the offenses have nothing to do with past or current offenses. The majority is the most stereotyped group in the country. My olive brach is this, I'll apologize for the actions of people who have nothing to do with me. The slaves and slave masters are bones in the ground. Even if I were the great-great-great grandson of one, am I accountable for their dispicable actions? My analogy was flawed. The offenders and offended are long dead. There will always be bigots but the vast majority of the "majority" are not. Don't hold up examples of backwoods rednecks or bring up one hundred year old crimes and hold me accountable for them. Disparaging current whites as racist is no different than assuming all monorities are gang bangers. Two sides of one coin and an inherited dysfunctional relationship, yes.

NO ONE IS KEEPING YOU DOWN. Argue with me about Muslim Americans if you like. They have a higher income than whites and I'm sure are the most discrimated against segment of the US population right now. Asians have a higher success rate than whites and we were rounding them up in internmemt camps just over 50 years ago. Millions of Jews were slaughtered in the middle of the last century and have been percecuted for thousands of years. They are successful and have moved on. Yes, we're sorry for the sins of light skinned people who have nothing to do with us but it's time to put up or shut up, you're free, you have opportunity. "Graduate from high school, go to college you can be the president of the United States". That's what my teachers and parents told me. The key to success in this country. Finishing high school is the first step. White or not, you're a dropout I have no sympathy for you. You failed on your own accord.

[ March 26, 2009, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they aren't level-headed individuals, not at all, I'm just saying it's hard to put an entire "group" of people into a role like that.
Funny how he's now willing to categorize based on race. He also seems to be able to "see" mixed race people now too. Funny that.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
let me ask you: what offenses have blacks committed against whites in this country?
Sean Puffy Combs, Reggaeton (arguably that was in Jamaica), "Who Let The Dogs Out," and "Flavor of Love," just to name a few examples.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Who are you quoting?
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
quote:
Posted by Malanthrop:
Political correctness not only protects the offended from being insulted, it is a barrier to overcoming the problems that exist in our society.

I think this directly correlates to affirmative action, and the division with races. I had a conversation with a collegue recently on this topic. This Nation sees the need for race divisions, yet because of the different races that profit in some way or another from division, any efforts of eliminating the need for the division would be met with more conflicts.

I believe races benefit from divisions much the same as unions benefit from their individuality of vocation, and those within a particular race as with the individual employee within the union.

My sister-in-law is from Brazil, and though she has a very dark skin, she is seen as nothing but Brazilian. She tells us in Brazil there is no distiction made between those with different color skin, everyone is either Brazilian or not.

I hope to see the time we are Truly measured by the content of our character than by the color of our skin. I understand individuality is important, but there are so many ways one can be individual, and to take the most obvious path is insulting to one's intelligence or creativity. I really hate to see people take advantage because of the color of their skin, whether that's in the job market or to get into better schools. The content of their character should be enough- yet because of the division that exists it isn't, and it seems as a Nation we have a ways to go.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
The "funny thing" is I am not the offender. I've never owned a slave, forced a Jew into a gas chamber or hacked a Hutu to death with a mechete. On top of that, I have no inherited guilt since none of my ancestors committed any of those offenses either. To be completely accurate, the vast majority of the people you hold accountable for the offenses have nothing to do with past or current offenses.
It isn't solely a question of whether you or your ancestors committed the offenses. It is also a question of whether you benefitted from those offenses. Even though you are not guilty of the crimes, if you have benefitted from those crimes, isn't it rational to assume you owe those who are still suffering from the crime something?

If you look very hard at the history of country, you will find dozens of examples of the ways white people have benefitted from and continue to enjoy the benfits of slavery and laws that discriminated against black people.

For example, during the 1940 - 60s, blacks were generally prohibited from receiving FHA and VA loans, even thought they paid the same taxes as white. So in effect, anyone who got an FHA and VA loan during that era, benefitted from racial discrimination. Did your parents or grandparents get that kind of loan?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
The "funny thing" is that, once again, instead of actually answering a direct question instead you threw up a big block of high blown rhetoric instead.

So, you're still a hack. Still full of it.

Oh, and it's good to know the Jews got over it.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
My sister-in-law is from Brazil, and though she has a very dark skin, she is seen as nothing but Brazilian. She tells us in Brazil there is no distiction made between those with different color skin, everyone is either Brazilian or not.
And Brazil isn't known at all for having serious body image issues... [Roll Eyes]

Tell me what the Brazilians and the Argentinians think of each other. And lets not get into the treatment of isolated cultures all over the Brazilian countryside.

The naivete of your second hand "in this place it's like this" references makes me feel a little bad for stomping all over you. You obviously just have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No distinction made between those with different skin colors in Brazil? Definitely not. I was in Rio a few months back for a conference, and I witnessed several times derogatory remarks being made about groups of people based on the color of their skin.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
But fuguuuuuu..... he heard about it from his sister in lawwwww.....


You're mean!
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
No distinction made between those with different skin colors in Brazil? Definitely not. I was in Rio a few months back for a conference, and I witnessed several times derogatory remarks being made about groups of people based on the color of their skin.
I don't believe you, because I haven't heard in detail and repeatedly how multiracial your family is. You're doing it wrong. Race-name-drop, man!
 
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 
There is no distincition made between those with different skin colers in Mexico eather. But, I've lived there a couple of times, once for an extended period, and I have yet to see a Mexican woman employ a maid with a lighter skin tone that the employer.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I wouldn't be surprised if there was less race based anger or what have you than here. Brazil in particular among South American countries has been dealing with issues of race integration for a couple centuries longer than we have in America. But I might be a little surprised to find that everything is just hunky dory.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
There is no distincition made between those with different skin colers in Mexico eather. But, I've lived there a couple of times, once for an extended period, and I have yet to see a Mexican woman employ a maid with a lighter skin tone that the employer.
OK, here's what I don't understand: how does living somewhere a couple of times give anyone the experience to say authoritatively, "This never happens there."

I can't even say that about my own home town, much less a country of hundreds of millions.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Rakeesh: Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but not noticing racism in one's daily affairs for months or years at a time is certainly significant when there are countries where it can be easily observed on a near constant basis.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
The "funny thing" is I am not the offender. I've never owned a slave, forced a Jew into a gas chamber or hacked a Hutu to death with a mechete. On top of that, I have no inherited guilt since none of my ancestors committed any of those offenses either. To be completely accurate, the vast majority of the people you hold accountable for the offenses have nothing to do with past or current offenses.
It isn't solely a question of whether you or your ancestors committed the offenses. It is also a question of whether you benefitted from those offenses. Even though you are not guilty of the crimes, if you have benefitted from those crimes, isn't it rational to assume you owe those who are still suffering from the crime something?

If you look very hard at the history of country, you will find dozens of examples of the ways white people have benefitted from and continue to enjoy the benfits of slavery and laws that discriminated against black people.

For example, during the 1940 - 60s, blacks were generally prohibited from receiving FHA and VA loans, even thought they paid the same taxes as white. So in effect, anyone who got an FHA and VA loan during that era, benefitted from racial discrimination. Did your parents or grandparents get that kind of loan?

I don't deny Americans have benefited some from slavery, and that includes African Americans. Without slavery there would be very few Africans living outside of Africa today. Wouldn't want to surmise how lousy music would be without their influence. Americans really benefited from Chinese railroad builders, etc. The price slaves paid for their ancestors to be free was incredibly high.

They aren't slaves anymore, they do qualify for FHA and VA loans today. I'm quite sure my wife would leave me if I blamed my deficiencies on her past mistakes. If I continually reminded her of past trespasses and used it as a lever and excuse for current actions. Just my hack answer.

The blame game and race card is already losing its impact. Does anyone take seriously the accusation that standardized tests are racially biased, high arrest rates are due to a racist legal system. The force of the race card is diminishing in our society. Eventually bringing up the past will be dismissed as a cop out. Current problems can be attributed to two things: high dropout rates, high illegitimacy rates. The odds of failure are even accross racial lines when you don't have a stable father figure.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Does anyone take seriously the accusation that standardized tests are racially biased...
Not only do I take it seriously, I know for an absolute fact that they are.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
What, biased towards Asians since they score the highest.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The most obvious example of bias comes in the case of reading comprehension tests, which have been proven pretty definitively to test first and foremost a person's familiarity with the subject being discussed in the text, and only secondarily their ability to comprehend the text.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Does anyone take seriously the accusation that standardized tests are racially biased
Yes, because stringent analysis of these tests show that, in fact, they do manage this feat.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
mm. also.

quote:
Finishing high school is the first step. White or not, you're a dropout I have no sympathy for you. You failed on your own accord.
There's plenty of hypothetical circumstances where failure in high school is more a matter of outside influences rather than the assured worth (or worthlessness) of the students who failed high school.

There's plenty of anecdotal circumstances where I've seen people end up having to drop out of high school due to capricious circumstances. Getting hit by drunk drivers halfway through senior year followed by a transfer, mental breakdown due to badly prescribed drugs that conflicted with misdiagnosed bipolar, inheriting a brother as a dependent when parents are killed, etc.

Am I to have no sympathy for any of them?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Rakeesh: Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but not noticing racism in one's daily affairs for months or years at a time is certainly significant when there are countries where it can be easily observed on a near constant basis.
You're right, it's just that what I was referring to are absolute statements.

---

quote:

They aren't slaves anymore, they do qualify for FHA and VA loans today. I'm quite sure my wife would leave me if I blamed my deficiencies on her past mistakes. If I continually reminded her of past trespasses and used it as a lever and excuse for current actions. Just my hack answer.

That is a hack answer, because whether or not your wife should just get over it doesn't release you in the slightest from your obligation to help her get over it.

quote:
Does anyone take seriously the accusation that standardized tests are racially biased, high arrest rates are due to a racist legal system.
No one serious argues that disproportionate minority crime is due solely to a racist criminal justice system. On the other hand, no one worth listening to argues that racism is no longer a factor in our criminal justice system either.

quote:
Current problems can be attributed to two things: high dropout rates, high illegitimacy rates. The odds of failure are even accross racial lines when you don't have a stable father figure.
Here's the real tricky question for you to either ignore or sidestep: why are these things disproportionate problems among minorities?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
"Am I to have no sympathy for any of them? "

Not if you want to be a "malanthrop".
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Here's the real tricky question for you to either ignore or sidestep: why are these things disproportionate problems among minorities?
Internal and external reasons. External such as economic and socials pressures. Internal such as a culture where the woman holds families together and men prove their worth by wandering and being untouchable.

What is the proportion of which? I don't know, but I am definitely not willing to accept that the huge number of fatherless families I saw in Detroit isn't the fault of the biological fathers who ran away from their children.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Sort of begs the question though, doesn't it?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
At some point, you have stop blaming other people for your own actions. As hard as it is to be poor in a family, abandoning your children to a worse poverty without you isn't excusable.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
But I'm not all that interested in placing blame here. And even if I were, vaguely waving my hand at a portion of a city would be pretty unfulfilling. I am, however, interested in figuring out why certain parents are statistically more likely to abandon their children and what we can do to mitigate those circumstances. I don't think that gesturing at economic forces and then looking to lay blame accomplishes that.

EDIT - It's not that there isn't a time and place to apportion moral responsibility, I just think that setting is at the individual level, and then only as necessary.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
At some point, you have stop blaming other people for your own actions. As hard as it is to be poor in a family, abandoning your children to a worse poverty without you isn't excusable.

But again, begging the question. You can hold individuals responsible as individuals- but when you apply that responsibility to an entire population or culture of people, you have to at least be curious as to *why* that culture is doing what it is doing. Racists would say that they are inherently not as good, genetically or spiritually, or whatever, as others. Realists and rationalists and other reasonable people will attempt to find the forces outside a culture (or in that culture's history, however far back it goes) that may have caused this greater trend.

And you don't have to go very far back at all in the black community to discover that they arrived en mass in this nation as slaves. Now, I'm inclined to believe that a group of people ripped out of their own societies and cultures on a faraway continent and put into tiny boats (many never to survive), subjected to endless generational humiliations and suffering, would have as its descendants a population of people who retain some social problems.

As James Baldwin put it: "All that hatred and misery and love. It's a wonder it doesn't blow the avenue apart." It's kind of a testament to the resiliency of people in general that we have a society in which our children now attend the same schools. You have never experienced it, nor have I, but slavery was not that long ago on the scale of a civilization- in fact it was breathtakingly recent.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Of couse I have sympathy for someone who dropped out of high school after being injured by a drunk driver. If you want to use specific situations like this to make a general point, I could do the same. Condoleeza Rice. One person, genius, proves women and minorities have opportunity and can succeed.

I wouldn't side step the illegitimacy question. Any group of people who have an illegitimacy rate near 80% is going to suffer as a people. Just so I am clear, I believe there is no difference between races in terms of potential or intelligence. Men learn from their fathers how to be men. Abusive fathers create abusive sons. (I'm sure someone going to call me out for stereotyping so I'll say it now, not all abused become abusers) IMO govt intervention has contributed to the destruction of the family. An interesting study would be a comparison of the 20% non-illegitimate children to the non-illegitimate children of other races. The performance gap will certainly be diminished.

Political Correctness is also destructive. I believe millions of minorities are being neglected in schools in the name of political correctness. As a child teachers constantly corrected my grammer. Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."teeth, not teef","you are, not you be", "we are, not we be", etc. This goes beyond accent, this is willful neglect in the education of a child. There's a big difference between ignorant speech and accent. One of the most racist lies ever perpetrated on minorites is convincing them ignorance is culture.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."teeth, not teef","you are, not you be", "we are, not we be", etc.
Yeah, teachers don't do that *rolleyes*

And, of course, let's not forget that nowhere in the United States is perfect spoken English taught...or that there isn't such a thing. Once again, one of your own examples says more about you than you perhaps intended.

Quick! Throw the race-name-dropping-smoke-bomb!
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."teeth, not teef","you are, not you be", "we are, not we be", etc. This goes beyond accent, this is willful neglect in the education of a child. There's a big difference between ignorant speech and accent. One of the most racist lies ever perpetrated on minorites is convincing them ignorance is culture.

Are you honestly suggesting this? That teachers in the united states pretty much don't correct grammar for black kids, because they are black?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Speech class
English class
How about English as a Second Language
A person's ability to communicate is key to success in this country.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
quote:
Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."
My favorite response in class to students who wanted to "axe me something" was to ask "is violence really necessary?"

I was also prone to responding to "what's on the test?" with "ink".... and responding to "how long is the test?" with "11 inches... what's more, it's 8 and a half inches wide!"
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
How about English as a Second Language
How dare children in America not have English as their first language!

Know who I saw mostly in the English and Speech classes I took? White people.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
You said "no where in America is perfect spoken English taught"

I thought I might give you a few examples.

ESL is great. Hispanics have figured out speaking proper English is needed for success.

Rakeesh
"Know who I saw mostly in the English and Speech classes I took? White people. "

The racist schools only let white people take these classes.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Speech class
English class
How about English as a Second Language
A person's ability to communicate is key to success in this country.

Do you want to answer my question? If you think you are responding to my question with this, do you think you could try to respond in a less totally oblique fasion?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
You said "no where in America is perfect spoken English taught"
Well, speaking from my own experience, even there I noticed some mistakes. I made more than I noticed the teacher making though, obviously.

And anyway, I reiterate: there is no such thing as perfect spoken English.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."teeth, not teef","you are, not you be", "we are, not we be", etc. This goes beyond accent, this is willful neglect in the education of a child. There's a big difference between ignorant speech and accent. One of the most racist lies ever perpetrated on minorites is convincing them ignorance is culture.

Are you honestly suggesting this? That teachers in the united states pretty much don't correct grammar for black kids, because they are black?
Sorry, responded to Rakeesh first.

Isn't ebonics accepted as proper?
I'm sure some do. Probably black teachers are more likely to do so. The PC fear of offense probably holds back a lot of white teachers. My daughters class is 3 to 1 black, and I've volunteered in that class. If the teacher consistently corrected the students in this manner, they probably wouldn't have time to cover the other subjects.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Of course there isn't perfect spoken English. The British are not impressed with American English either. A person needs to at least be able to communicate effectively. Maybe its just my racist ear but there are some people I honestly have great difficulty understanding. I wouldn't hire this individual if it was in the job description to communicate with customers.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Isn't ebonics accepted as proper?

No, it is studied as a dialect. I'm adept at hawaiian pidgin because I studied it as a dialect; knowing it and contemplating the necessity of inclusion of urban or regional dialects into the accessibility of education is different than usurping grammar with relative 'properness.'

quote:
I'm sure some do. Probably black teachers are more likely to do so.
Yeah, I'm sure some do. But this is a non-argument. I'm sure some people do lots of things. But as per your original assertion — "Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."teeth, not teef","you are, not you be", "we are, not we be", etc." —

the answer is emphatically yes, and this undercuts your point, such as it was, severely.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
Isn't ebonics accepted as proper?
I'm sure some do. Probably black teachers are more likely to do so. The PC fear of offense probably holds back a lot of white teachers. My daughters class is 3 to 1 black, and I've volunteered in that class. If the teacher consistently corrected the students in this manner, they probably wouldn't have time to cover the other subjects.

So which is it, then? Are teachers cringing in fear of the PC police or are they just choosing their battles?

Also, Sam raises a good point about Hawaiian pidgen. In certain parts of Hawaii, speaking proper English would be to the detriment of day-to-day conversation.

EDITED because the conversation moved while I was writing a response.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Strange, I'll ask my wife. She's a teacher in a school that is 60% black, 20% hispanic and 20% white.

You're correct, my original assertion was too broad. Using your logic I couldn't say "teachers are not pedophiles" because SOME are. You've used this tactic repeatedly and undercuts any communication and is a cop out for any attempt at an itillectual argument. Suprised you didn't respond by calling me a racist, or telling me you're not even going to waste your time talking about the issue.

[ March 27, 2009, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Everyone speaks differently in different situations. I swear around the guys but never at home. Teachers are both choosing their battles and afraid of PC issues. True, closing the achievement gap at all levels of education is a serious time taker. It's my contention the achievement gap is the fault of the parents. My daughter isn't near the top of her class because her white brain is superior. She comes home to parents who care about her education. The underachievement of the kids sitting next to her all day have nothing to do with the school or any form of discrimination.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
You're correct, my original assertion was too broad. Using your logic I couldn't say "teachers are not pedophiles" because SOME are. You've used this tactic repeatedly and undercuts any communication and is a cop out for any attempt at an itillectual argument. Suprised you didn't respond by calling me a racist, or telling me you're not even going to waste your time talking about the issue.

it 'undercuts your communication' to demonstrate openly that what you are saying is wrong, yes. That tends to happen.

And I don't know what you're talking about with the cross-comparison. You can absolutely say that teachers are not pedophiles because there is nothing inherent to the profession which necessarily dictates a requisite level of pedophilia.

response to rest of post: ummmmmmmm okkaayyy?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
mm. also.

quote:
Finishing high school is the first step. White or not, you're a dropout I have no sympathy for you. You failed on your own accord.
There's plenty of hypothetical circumstances where failure in high school is more a matter of outside influences rather than the assured worth (or worthlessness) of the students who failed high school.

There's plenty of anecdotal circumstances where I've seen people end up having to drop out of high school due to capricious circumstances. Getting hit by drunk drivers halfway through senior year followed by a transfer, mental breakdown due to badly prescribed drugs that conflicted with misdiagnosed bipolar, inheriting a brother as a dependent when parents are killed, etc.

Am I to have no sympathy for any of them?

Here's an example. Your responses....hypothetical to undercut the argument. True, SOME people have been hit by cars and have dropped out and they deserve sympathy.

see your pattern
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
These capricious circumstances don't cause a >50% drop out rate.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So your argument is that there is something rotten within a given culture, and that culture is no longer being victimized in any way and should get over it?

What solution would you recommend, especially for helping any young children born into that culture?
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
Everyone speaks differently in different situations. I swear around the guys but never at home.
And this is massively different than speaking one dialect at home, and then being expected to learn a different one in school. Some kids in our country have to learn multiple sets of vocabulary and grammar in order to function. It isn't a coincidence that these kids have a more difficult time in school.

Anyway, off to bed. Night!
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
There are problems within groups but I wouldn't suggest they have a rotten culture. There's no way I would classify absent father figures as the culture only a learned problem that tends to repeat generation after generation.

I do not think it is productive to hold out every example of victimization that occurs. Individuals are still victimized but I do not believe it to be systemic. People of all groups are victimized by people of other groups, and it could have very little to do with racism. When a white is mugged by a minority it's not held up on the national stage as another example of minority predation on whites. (rightfully so, it's just a mugging) I've known white guys who were slammed against police cars and kicked repeatedly by cops but it isn't discriminatory, just a bad police officer. I've sat in restauraunts and watched other people served who came in after me and experienced lousy service. I'm white so when it happens to me, it's just lousy service. When it happens to a minority, sometimes it's interpreted as discrimination.

I went to a high school that was state champs year after year after year for decades. A culture of success. The victim mindset needs to be broken not amplified. If a person believes he is a loser he will be one. A parent tells his child he is stupid, the child will be stupid. A parent teaches a kid that he is a victim he will be a victim, real or percieved.

It is my hope that Obama can be the ultimate example for a people and change the victim mindset. I totally disagree with his politics but I liked the pride and sense of hope he brought to black people. What type of hope is it? Hope that he will provide for them or a sense of hope that anyone can succeed. I'm glad to see a different type of black leader. The Sharptons and Jacksons only reinforced the victim mentality every chance they got. True leaders are examples for a people.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
So much hostility in this thread! It seems, with very few exceptions this conversation is one vs the rest. I feel for you Malanthrop.

Earlier, I addressed a situation in Brazil as was explained by a native Brazilian. I was referring to Brazil's seemingly equal acceptance of different races. I didn't address their issues with body image, or their feelings towards Argentinians.

quote:
By Fugu:
No distinction made between those with different skin colors in Brazil? Definitely not. I was in Rio a few months back for a conference, and I witnessed several times derogatory remarks being made about groups of people based on the color of their skin.

My mistake, since you visited once and noticed several uses of derogatory remarks made towards a group of people based on their skin, that means the personal account of someone who spent her entire life there must not be true.

I just loved Orinoco's remark after Fugu's comment:
quote:
But fuguuuuuu..... he heard about it from his sister in lawwwww.....


You're mean!

Because I quote a family member that makes me juvenile? Do you think you're better than me? A comment like that is only said to give one power over another. Are you staking territory here and otherwise stating you or your opinions are better than me and mine?

Rakeesh, I didn't understand this comment of yours and think it was directed towards someone else:
quote:
I don't believe you, because I haven't heard in detail and repeatedly how multiracial your family is. You're doing it wrong. Race-name-drop, man!
If that was directed towards me, then please explain why addressing this petty stab of yours would benefit this conversation.


One comment I would like to address, and that's Lyrhawn's comment:
quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if there was less race based anger or what have you than here. Brazil in particular among South American countries has been dealing with issues of race integration for a couple centuries longer than we have in America.
I believe time is a factor to their racial acceptance. I've lived in Europe for over a year, and have noticed their racial acceptance is far above ours as well. A person is recognized first by nationality, and then if necessary by the color of their skin.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
mm. also.

quote:
Finishing high school is the first step. White or not, you're a dropout I have no sympathy for you. You failed on your own accord.
There's plenty of hypothetical circumstances where failure in high school is more a matter of outside influences rather than the assured worth (or worthlessness) of the students who failed high school.

There's plenty of anecdotal circumstances where I've seen people end up having to drop out of high school due to capricious circumstances. Getting hit by drunk drivers halfway through senior year followed by a transfer, mental breakdown due to badly prescribed drugs that conflicted with misdiagnosed bipolar, inheriting a brother as a dependent when parents are killed, etc.

Am I to have no sympathy for any of them?

Here's an example. Your responses....hypothetical to undercut the argument. True, SOME people have been hit by cars and have dropped out and they deserve sympathy.

see your pattern

um.

You're balking that I have a reliable method by which to point out the fallacy of your reasoning?

I mean, I can't help you there? They are your arguments, after all.

I am only holding you to account to your arguments as presented. If you presented them wrong and made them weak to that sort of 'undercutting,' then, that's your issue, mang.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
with very few exceptions this conversation is one vs the rest.
There have been exceptions?
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Tom,
I believe in small ways, some have agreed with Mal. Wait, let me try to phrase this just right - In some of the responses given to Mal on his opinion, there has been some common understanding and acceptance, not a lot but some salt and peppered across the last 3 pages.

Would you agree with that? does that make sense?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oh. I thought you were Mal.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, this is lovely timing.

A story with some recent comments by the President of Brazil:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae4957e8-1a5f-11de-9f91-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

But don't worry, I'm sure that in Brazil it is only the President who sees skin color, not anybody else.

edit: and I bet the people I overheard making racist comments were the President in varying disguises. Instead of it being a problem there much like other places. Btw, I'm not saying Brazil isn't doing a better job at dealing with race than we are; I think it is doing a better job, actually. But to pretend race doesn't exist to people there is just not true.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
You can find an example in any group to dispel the conversation. It would be impossible to discuss anything that includes more than one individual if any difference between the individuals could be used to nullify a statement. I could say, "The Jones family is nice" but you might respond, "that's not true their daughter is spoiled"

I could use your "reliable method", and deny slavery in the 1800's since some were free. I hear repeatedly how whites enslaved blacks, no "some whites" a long time ago enslaved blacks. 99% of American whites were not slave owners. Segregation was not even in the majority of states. What about white people who came to this country after slavery was abolished? It is particularly discriminatory to blame white people. Arabs were involved, and so were Africans. How about this one, whites freed the slaves who were completely powerless to free themselves. The bloodiest war in American history.

The republican party was founded for this purpose. Southern democrats were pro-slavery. Southern Dems were against desegregation. Abraham Lincold was assassinated three days after giving a speech calling for voting rights for blacks. How long did it take after that? The racist democrats didn't want to lose control, as soon as blacks were free to vote and desegregated, they found another means of control. Nanny state. Segregate them into housing projects and give them foodstamps. No better way to control a people, oppress them with compassion, loyal victim voters. The slave masters too, gave the slaves a roof and food. Not required to work in the fields just vote for me.

Has there been any improvement since the implementation of these programs. Lucy and the football and Charley Brown keeps kicking. They keep promising but have you ever noticed a good portion of successful blacks are conservative? Listen to the parties. Compare the words of Michael Steele to the words of Jesse Jackson. One offers hope, the other blame.

[ March 27, 2009, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Has there been any improvement since the implementation of these programs.
Since the late 1800s? Um. Yes.

By the way, dude, the more you talk, the more racist I think you actually are. I gave you a lot more benefit of the doubt before you started trying to explain your philosophy. The sad thing about this is that I think you genuinely believe you aren't racist, and have no idea how conflicted you are on the issue.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups"

Your misuse/abuse of the term racism is astounding. Has my philosophy indicated anything supporting the above defenition. You've called me racist for saying I don't care what a persons race is. You've called me racist for insisting that all people have equal abilities. Your inability to believe my statements speaks more about your own prejudice than you know.

1800's? - No, since the civil rights act was introduced by a republican in 1960 but blocked by dems until 1964. After that, Dems became the proponents of massive social welfare programs. Must have had a change of heart and changed from the segregators to the saviors.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So you're saying that race relations haven't improved since '64?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
1800's? - No, since the civil rights act was introduced by a republican in 1960 but blocked by dems until 1964. After that, Dems became the proponents of massive social welfare programs. Must have had a change of heart and changed from the segregators to the saviors.
Talk about ignoring context to support a point.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Fugu,
Blamed white people with blue eyes huh? . . . That sure seems like a racist remark to me. In fact I can't even argue with that, since I don't live in Brazil, and my sister is brown skinned with brown eyes.
I appreciate your opinion they are more progressed than we seem to be. I'm not fighting to say we should move to Brazil because they know how to treat people of different races fairly, I was suggesting they deal more fairly than we do here, and the suggestion they have had more practice than we have makes sense to me.

Tom,
how come you are doing the name blame thing here. I don't see any more racism in Mal than I see in all his accusers. How productive is it to call him or anyone in this forum a racist? I think all the relevence to this conversation is lost in hostility. The conversation is reduced to mindless name calling and bickering. What's the point?

Oh, and no, I'm not Mal, I'm just another conservative POV in the room. I don't know him any better than I know you, in fact I know you better than I know him- thanks to your contribution to my absurd memories post.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I think race relations have improved but there are those who gain and maintain polital power by keeping the anger alive. The solutions offered have established a strong voting base but have failed to sufficiently improve the lives of many blacks in America.

The biggest form of racial tension left is an almost irrational fear of offending a minority individual. I am conflicted in this, I'm sick of the accusations of racism. A lot of whites feel like they've been flogged enough for the sins of other white people. When I see a video or a story comes out about an episode of discrimination I am angry because one idiot just tore open a wound. One person set back everyone and reignited the fire. While the individual act is dispicable, it's still the act of one person. What sucks is there will always be those individuals and if they are held up for the nation as an example of white society, this thing will never heal.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
That's a real bullying tactic, to rule by fear. Nations have been using that tactic for centuries upon centuries. Hitler is the most prominent example, then there's Stalin. Just about every dictator uses fear to gain and retain power- look at Saddam! Iraq is a mess because of his fear tactics, and quite possibly the taliban was created because of it.

That last remark is speculation, since I really don't know why the Taliban was created, except to be used as another power who reins out of fear.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I believe the Taliban came together against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Remember Rambo 3 (I think 3) they were the good guys. Funny how the world works. But some infidels are more infidel than others, then on to the moderate muslims once they run out of infidels. [Smile]
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
I haven't seen that one, will have to check it out. Thanks for the reference.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:
Would a teacher dare tell a black kid ...."ask, not ax"...."
My favorite response in class to students who wanted to "axe me something" was to ask "is violence really necessary?"

I was also prone to responding to "what's on the test?" with "ink".... and responding to "how long is the test?" with "11 inches... what's more, it's 8 and a half inches wide!"

When I was a librarian for an inner city school, we managed consistently correct pronunciation of "library"*. I was very proud.

*Except when they would deliberately say "liberry" just to tease me as my responses were usually amusing.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Some comments about race in Brazil, from my experiences living there for two years:

The idea that there is no racism or race distinction in Brazil is completely false.

That said, it's pretty different from what we see her in America. While there is definitely some racism and discrimination, there's really no such thing as "black culture" in Brazil. From the very beginning when they brought the first African slaves over to Brazil, there was a high degree of integration and intermarrying between the Europeans and Africans. The slaves and their descendants weren't segregated enough from the rest of society to form their own culture as happened here.

In America, one's race is determined by one's ancestry. You belong to the same race as your parents, or the mixture of their two different races. In Brazil, it's determined only by your phenotpye. You're considered black if and only if you look black. It doesn't matter whether your parents were black or not; after all, it's assumed that most Brazilians have African ancestry anyway.

For example, if Halle Berry were Brazilian, I don't think she'd be considered black.

I recall a Law & Order episode where an extremely fair-skinned black man lived his life "pretending" to be white. In Brazil, this wouldn't make sense at all.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Condoleeza Rice. One person, genius, proves women and minorities have opportunity and can succeed.

Condalezza Rice was born into a highly educated family, and was given many opportunities by her parents and community which provided her with an advantage in life. That is a good thing. It doesn't prove anything about anyone besides Condalezza Rice:

Courtesy of Wikipedia:
quote:
Condoleezza Rice (whose given name is derived from the Italian musical expression, Con dolcezza, which means "with sweetness")[3] was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up in the neighborhood of Titusville. She traces her roots to pre-revolutionary African Americans in the American South. She is the only child of Presbyterian minister Reverend John Wesley Rice, Jr., and wife, Angelena Ray. Reverend Rice was a guidance counselor at Ullman High School and minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, which had been founded by his father. Angelena was a science, music, and oratory teacher at Ullman.[4]

Rice started learning French, music, figure skating and ballet at age three.[5] At age 15, she began classes with the goal of becoming a concert pianist. Her plans changed when she realized that she did not play well enough to support herself through music alone.[6] While Rice is not a professional pianist, she still practices often and plays with a chamber music group. Rice made use of her pianist training to accompany cellist Yo-Yo Ma for Brahms's Violin Sonata in D Minor at Constitution Hall in April 2002 for the National Medal of Arts Awards.[7]

Both of her parents were professionals in the field of public speaking, and both were educators. That is not a typical experience, and it is not representative of anything. The fact is that of course there are many, many black people who grow uup in favorable circumstances that allow them to succeed. The fact also remains that many, too many, do not. Can you not appreciate the difference between Rice and countless other people, white or black? Your prospects for success in life have to do with more than your moral fiber- more than your personal character, or what you were born with- but where you were born, and into what circumstances.

Just a tidbit on what Rice's father's view of this subject might be:

quote:
In 1967, the family moved to Denver, Colorado. She attended St. Mary's Academy, a private all-girls Catholic high school in Cherry Hills Village, Colorado. After studying piano at the Aspen Music Festival and School, Rice enrolled at the University of Denver, where her father both served as an assistant dean and taught a class called "The Black Experience in America." Dean John Rice opposed institutional racism, government oppression, and the Vietnam War.
Clearly, if one black woman born into an educated family, sent to private schools where her parents were closely involved with the educational process, and educated at a major university where her father was an assistant dean, can succeed in life, then ANYONE CAN!


quote:
It is my hope that Obama can be the ultimate example for a people and change the victim mindset. I totally disagree with his politics but I liked the pride and sense of hope he brought to black people. What type of hope is it? Hope that he will provide for them or a sense of hope that anyone can succeed. I'm glad to see a different type of black leader. The Sharptons and Jacksons only reinforced the victim mentality every chance they got. True leaders are examples for a people.
I want to point out that you began in this thread claiming not to see race. Now we find that you have many opinions about racial groups- and in fact that many of your opinions are ill-informed and patronizing. Not that I didn't suspect this (as I think we all did) from the beginning. I just want you to take note of how transparent it is.

Beleaguered:
quote:
Do you think you're better than me?
Clearly I do.


quote:
You can find an example in any group to dispel the conversation. It would be impossible to discuss anything that includes more than one individual if any difference between the individuals could be used to nullify a statement. I could say, "The Jones family is nice" but you might respond, "that's not true their daughter is spoiled"
:snort: Do you realize you're saying that it frustrates you that the fallacy of your statements can be easily demonstrated? Try thinking of ways of making your statements more fitting if you don't want them dismissed as trivial and naive. Because most of them have been trivial and naive so far.

It's not that someone can take an anecdote and disprove a generalization. In your example, "the Jones family is nice," the anecdotal evidence of its falsehood would be: "the daughter bumped into me once," or "their dog is always barking and they never do anything about it." The anecdote fails to disprove the premise- nice people can bump into you or have a loud dog and not hear it. But "the daughter is spoiled," rather does work against the premise. The family can be shown not to be as nice as you think, because they have raised a spoiled daughter- nice people don't raise spoiled (implying mean) kids (one would hope)

So, the anecdotes that *you* have used to disprove generalizations have been useless, but the arguments against your generalizations- reasons why they are weak, have been very effective. You don't know how to argue effectively. That is no one else's fault.

quote:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups"

Your misuse/abuse of the term racism is astounding. Has my philosophy indicated anything supporting the above definition?

Actually yes, I think so. I'll need to look back and find the instance(s) where I think you did speak under this assumption.


quote:
The biggest form of racial tension left is an almost irrational fear of offending a minority individual.
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid thing you have posted so far. In all seriousness, if you believe this statement to be true, then I find you to be one of the most blinded, willfully obtuse people who have ever posted here.

[ March 27, 2009, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
quote:
The republican party was founded for this purpose. Southern democrats were pro-slavery. Southern Dems were against desegregation. Abraham Lincold was assassinated three days after giving a speech calling for voting rights for blacks. How long did it take after that? The racist democrats didn't want to lose control, as soon as blacks were free to vote and desegregated, they found another means of control
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the issue for black Americans has never been "Democrats" versus "Republicans" as much as it has been conservatism versus liberalism. Take a look at the two parties' stances at the height of Jim Crow versus 2008 and you will understand why the Solid South went from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican, and why blacks went the other way.

--j_k
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
The most obvious example of bias comes in the case of reading comprehension tests, which have been proven pretty definitively to test first and foremost a person's familiarity with the subject being discussed in the text, and only secondarily their ability to comprehend the text.
I agree. I find most reading comprehension tests not only rely on how well you understand the topic, but also whether you understand the context of the questions. Sometimes these tests asks questions that I, an adult with a degree in English, sometimes have difficulty figuring out what they're asking.

I'm not sure these are racially biased, but they are certainly biased against actually correctly testing reading comprehension in any meaningful way. As far as I am concerned, the only way to test the reading ability of a person is to read with them and find out what they know by discussing with them where you as a real live person have a chance to rephrase the question if they don't get it.

A kid was told it was a writing test and became convinced it was testing his printing. He then went on to write very slowly, desperate to write neatly, try as I might to dissuade him. It's not an accurate assessment.

Standardized testing, especially for things like literature, is silly.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Teshi- I thought that they showed that neat handwriting did improve test scores on writing tests. It isn't supposed to, but that bias does exist.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Well, that may be true, but that ignores the point. He was so careful he only completed one or two questions, despite my insistance that it didn't matter.

Of course, none of these kids (grade 5!) can handwrite in what is called "cursive" in North America, so they're not really equipped at all.
 
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
 
Oh, Brazilians definitely recognize differences in skin color. The Brazilian census asks about skin color and allows people to enter whatever term they choose to describe themselves and they come up with a lot of different terms to describe all sorts of slight variations in color. And, if I’m remembering correctly, comparatively few Brazilians would label themselves as ‘black’, instead they’d use ‘dark brown’ or other terms that were similar but didn’t have the same connotations (I will look to see if I can find a source for this, but no guarantees – it’s been a few years and I don’t have access to many journals anymore).

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
In America, one's race is determined by one's ancestry. You belong to the same race as your parents, or the mixture of their two different races. In Brazil, it's determined only by your phenotpye. You're considered black if and only if you look black. It doesn't matter whether your parents were black or not; after all, it's assumed that most Brazilians have African ancestry anyway.

I agree with everything that Porter's said about race in Brazil. Additionally I would add that there's a socio-economic consideration to color. In other words, the richer you are, the whiter you will be considered. Race in Brazil is complex and often very nuanced, but it definitely exists and gets noticed.

In regards to Mexico, the government is color-blind in that it doesn’t track race or ethnicity or ask for it on any official forms. Basically, everyone is assumed to be of mixed European and indigenous ancestry and treated accordingly. Consequently the culture and heritage of people of other backgrounds, like the Afro-Mexicans, are ignored and forgotten.

As to racism in Latin America. It definitely exists. Just watch any of the Spanish language soaps on tv. Inevitably the leads are light skinned and frequently rich. Secondary characters are generally darker skinned, poorer and not infrequently played as caricatures of indigenous or Afro-Latinos.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
You are twisting my Condoleeza Rice comment completely out of context. Since you so often hold up one example as a rebuttal, I did the same in return. I made that statement to illustrate your inconsistency in this manner. It is rediculus to use one example to dismiss an argument, as you are so fond of doing. I turned it back on you....sorry you can't handle your own tactic. But you can pull one line out of context to illustrate to those who have not been folliwing the thread that I am racist.

How about this one, "No no no, not God bless America, God Damn America. The US of KKKA" If I heard the entire sermon I migh understand what his point. The argument defending Wright's comments are the same one's I am using. Although my statement was positive yet somehow racist.

Of course, being born with a silver spoon in your mouth is a leg up and having an 80% illigitimacy rate is a definite leg down. I grew up in a very poor family, four boys sharing one room, eating spagetti three times a week. I don't want to hear those excuses. You did much to prove my point. Condoleeza had a good father. She was one of the 20%. The cycle of racist blame was broken in her family and her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will be unlikely to fail and claim oppression. One good man changed the mindset and revectored his family lineage on a path of success. More people need to break this cycle, embrace personal responsibility and realize it is up to the individual to elevate one's self. The government can only create a legal system of equality of opportunity not of outcome. If you fail today, blame your father and mother. They had much more to do with molding and teaching you than the government and society.

My grandfather left the Indian Reservation but many of my relatives are still there, drinking and fighting. I am greatful that my grandfather revectored my family off that destructive path.

[ March 27, 2009, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Orinoco,
Of all I directed to you, you chose to answer one of my questions:
quote:
by beleaguered:
you think you're better than me?

quote:
Orinoco:
Clearly I do.

In this case, I'll be sure to consult with you in my daily affairs. I wouldn't want the substandard results that I produce.

I placed that question rhetorically, since I believed you had more etiquette than to answer. My comment was an attempt to prove a point - that you have placed yourself on a self-created pedistal as king of this conversation.

My second suggestion is to remove yourself from this inexistent pedistal, and discuss these matters like a civilized individual. Your tactics are not very productive to coming to any resolve. It seems to me you are content the conversation has turned into the Monday night smack down on RAW (or whatever that event is).
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Here's the Tampa arrest inquiry page. Fill in any date in the search block. Pretty cool really, arrest locations, charges, residence, employer and pictures too. I noticed the racial classifications are only white and black. Hispanics are white.

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/Sname01
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Definition of hispanic based on US OMB: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. So, it would be inappropriate for someone to use hispanic as a racial identifier.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
How about this one, "No no no, not God bless America, God Damn America. The US of KKKA" If I heard the entire sermon I migh understand what his point. The argument defending Wright's comments are the same one's I am using. Although my statement was positive yet somehow racist.
I'm having trouble parsing your words here. First, that is an inaccurate quotation: "God damn America, it's in the bible, for treating her citizens as less than human..." Having read and listened to the whole speech, I have the context to tell you that it was a hate filled pile of rubbish that played on the fears and resentments of the people listening to it. Are you against having the correct context for a point? Because the main problem with everything you've said, is that your arguments are weak- they are always poorly contextualized, ignoring the broader point; or alternatively they are excessively broad, and they ignore the obvious exceptions.

I'm not going to sit and tell you how to argue, but I will tell you that if the above paragraph is any indication of your mental organization, then I don't think you're capable of understanding anyone else here very well.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Definition of hispanic based on US OMB: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. So, it would be inappropriate for someone to use hispanic as a racial identifier.

There are many different, and conflicting, definitions of the word "hispanic". Some, like the one you're quoting, don't apply directly to race, others do.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
revectored
Interesting choice of words.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Officially, the U.S. government tracks "Hispanic" as an ethnicity and not a race. You can be a black Hispanic, an Asian Hispanic, etc...
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
How about this one, "No no no, not God bless America, God Damn America. The US of KKKA" If I heard the entire sermon I migh understand what his point. The argument defending Wright's comments are the same one's I am using. Although my statement was positive yet somehow racist.
I'm having trouble parsing your words here. First, that is an inaccurate quotation: "God damn America, it's in the bible, for treating her citizens as less than human..." Having read and listened to the whole speech, I have the context to tell you that it was a hate filled pile of rubbish that played on the fears and resentments of the people listening to it. Are you against having the correct context for a point? Because the main problem with everything you've said, is that your arguments are weak- they are always poorly contextualized, ignoring the broader point; or alternatively they are excessively broad, and they ignore the obvious exceptions.

I'm not going to sit and tell you how to argue, but I will tell you that if the above paragraph is any indication of your mental organization, then I don't think you're capable of understanding anyone else here very well.

Now you're quoting the Bible. I can do that too, the Bible sais to treat your slaves well. The Bible does not oppose slavery. I'm glad you heard his quotes in context because I did not and have tried to give hime the benefit of the doubt, unsuccessfully I'll admmit. You focus on the exeptions over the rule. If I did that you would call it stereotyping.

I'm impressed that you didn't fall into my trap and you admitted it was racist hate speech. One of the largest black churches in America putting forth racist hate speech. If the largest "white church" in the counnty had examples of racist hate speech, I guarantee one of it's preemenent members would not be elected president. Instead there would be protest on the church steps and call to shut it down (justifiably so)

[ March 29, 2009, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Dude, I'm quoting Jeremiah Wright, who says, and I QUOTE: "It's in the bible."

Quoting someone talking *about* the bible is not quoting the bible. Wright does also say: "One Psalm writer puts it this way: 'as thou has been, thou forever will be, thou changes not.'" Again, me quoting someone who quoted the bible, is not quoting the bible for my purposes, but to show the context of someone else's speech. In this case, Wright was quoting Psalms in order to reinforce the belief that the US government is incapable of changing, but that the Christian god's sense of justice does not change. It's a clever way of putting things, but it's also fear mongering and hateful. The people who complain that Wright was quoted out of context don't always realize that the greater context of his speech was even worse than the out of context quote.

Now, as to your other point, I don't really agree. Wright's position is not the position of his church *necessarily.* Obama also made very swift and effective strides to distance himself from the acrimony that Wright expressed, and he did so convincingly and thoughtfully in his Iowa "Speech on Race," which I recommend you read. I don't believe Obama could have said things the way he did, if he didn't believe that what Wright had said was wrong. I also find nothing at all wrong with belonging to a Church that espouses views you don't share. I doubt there is a single member of any church who is not in that position some of the time. Obama has not said or done anything, that I have ever been aware of, to indicate that he agreed with Wright on that point- and frankly I just don't think he does. It's a plus for me that he was so able to demonstrate that fact publicly.

There are hateful old people in every church. We do need to be able to parse the difference between the church members and their organization, if we can ever hope to maintain a separation of church and state- individuals are not responsible for the views of religious leaders, unless they publicly support those views.

Edit: Here's why I think Wright wasn't much of a factor for Obama- I didn't think it was because the media "let him off," or "covered it up." You heard the quotes on radio and television the same as I did, but Obama came back with an answer that I believed. In contrast to Obama's handling of the Wright situation, Sarah Palin never handled any of the questions about her religious affiliations well. When people asked if she was religiously opposed to the idea of evolution, or asked if she believed that dinosaurs shared the Earth with people, she didn't muster much of an effort to set the record straight. In my opinion this was largely because she was meant to appeal to religious extremists in the first place, and so an emphatic denial of any given belief would have weakened that appeal. Obama also could have benefited from a weak denial of Wright's speech (although the backlash would have been much worse if he had), by appealing to fringe minority voters who identified with that anger. Instead, he strongly stated his positions on the subject, and allowed the matter to drop.

I know you have trouble accepting this, but that is exactly why Obama "got away" with the things you wanted to be more discussed. He addressed things thoroughly and unequivocally, left no room for doubt in the voter's minds, and moved on. The doubts then, had to be generated at the fringe of plausibility, where Obama's mere mention of the "controversy" would have been laughably silly. Thus, Obama was not called a race-hating black power monger (even though the Wright connection was undeniable), but instead a "secret Muslim," an accusation that has absolutely no answer- what was Obama going to do, stand up and denounce Islam? Why should he? He isn't Muslim- and the act of denial would have been construed as a tacit confirmation of the idea. The problem with all of those little conspiracy and boogy-man theories about Obama is that even in their conception, they strained plausibility and flouted common human experience and logic. How does a short visit in Kenya make someone a lifelong devotee of a religion they never, ever claim to be a member of, or claim to share any sympathies with. How does simply knowing a former terrorist, a man who is known to be active in the local government where Obama lived, say anything at all about Obama's beliefs? It doesn't, and again, Obama was forced to deny the obviously unfounded- he even rightly pointed out that conservatives had dealt with him as well- the whole community had dealt with the man.

As long as the American conservative movement believes in the Machiavellian ideals that they have followed in recent years, in blatant voter intimidation, character assassination, and the targeting of disadvantaged people for disenfranchisement, they will not have my respect. I'm not going to claim that the democratic party smells like a rose- the politicians inhabit both parties fairly equally. What I will say is that in their commitment to those underrepresented groups, the democrats have had to, for the sake of survival, work on the assumption that the will of the people, and not just the strong and gifted and entitled, should be heard. Republicans used to be that way, but they aren't anymore.

[ March 29, 2009, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
Now you're quoting the Bible
He didn't quote the Bible. Go back and read what he wrote, then comment. How can you comment if you don't pay careful attention to what he actually wrote?

You're trying to put a three-pronged plug into the delicate many-pronged sockets like on electronics. However hard you jam it in, it's not going to fit; it's too big, too crude, too simple, too insensitive.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Sorry I misinterpreted your quote as his quote.

I don't deny Obama distanced himself from that church when it became politically expedient. Black Liberation Theology was politically useful for him when he was trying to garner support and win votes as a South Side Chicago State Senator but doesn't play well on the national level. He went to that church for 20 years, Wright is the God father of his children and conducted his wedding. He knew full well the positions of the church. I don't honestly believe Obama agreed with those racist positions but there were a lot of voters at that church and he let them thinkhe shared their view. "White greed runs a world in need"...Obama. If my church ever made crazy comments like, blacks are Nephelim of some crazy racist talk, I wouldn't remain. Maybe I would if it were the largest church in a racist district and I needed the votes though, huh?

It's a stretch to compare a creationist to a racist? There is no comparison between Palin's church and Obama's church. Excuse me, his racist church he dropped after 20 years in the middle of a presidential election. The fact that he did that illustrated perfectly his core beliefs. Ambitious politician who used south-side Chicago as a political stepping stone. How are things going in obama's old district since he moved on to national office. Have they gone above 27% graduation rate yet? Isn't his old district still the murder capital of the nation? He's a politician who is very effective at using division to gain political power. Racial strife or class warfare. Class warfare plays better on the national level. Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, great speeches about white oppression and inequality of wealth distribution. When the speeches are done, it's a chauffeured drive to a mansion in a rich white neighborhood with a quick stop at the bank to cash the checks of poor black people.

I've got old lotto tickets for sale, anyone interested?

[ March 30, 2009, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Isn't his old district still the murder capital of the nation?
Um....To the best of my knowledge, it has never been the "murder capital" of the nation.

quote:
Class warfare plays better on the national level. Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, great speeches about white oppression and inequality of wealth distribution.
So do you believe that Obama is just giving lip service to weath redistribution with his proposed budget?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
I don't deny Obama distanced himself from that church when it became politically expedient.
This is about as subtle as: "I'm sorry that you're an idiot."

My comparison of the political expedients used by Obama and Palin highlighted the fact that Obama disassociated himself from an extreme viewpoint, yes, in order to get elected. As you admit, it's unlikely he shared that level of skepticism about the government- and in fact all of his public sentiments have been in diametric opposition to those of Wright.

If you actually listen to the speech, which you admit that you have not, you'll come across this gem of a reference from Wright (which I believe predates, "change," in the Obama campaign): "Let me leave you with one more thing, governments change, God does not change. When governments fail, God does not fail, when governments lie, God does not lie..." That's probably a sentiment Wright had expressed before, and the idea of inevitable change probably influenced Obama when he was associated with Wright. However, the fatalistic and anti-government sentiments at the end of Wright's speech represent a totally different conclusion from what Obama reached. Clearly, to me, having read speeches by both men on the same topic, they took fundamental principles of morality and justice, and came to different conclusions about the way things could turn out, and what should be done about it. Kudos to Obama for making the right decision- I don't think being in Wright's church hurt him in the slightest, and in fact I think it taught him some powerful lessons about the way people think.

Yet you ignored the point of the comparison. When time came to state a position, Obama clearly stated his. He didn't pretend to be a member of that church, he was a member, but when it came to letting the people of the nation know his views, he came down outside of Wright's view. The only thing left is for you to think he was lying (either while a member, or after he was a member) which you are free to do. I just don't think so.

Do republicans not believe that people can change for the better? Does it never occur to anyone that the central theme of Obama's Presidential campaign may have had some resonance with Obama's real feelings about his own life and personality? I mean, seriously, George Bush was an alcoholic business failure, and in many ways a disappointment to his whole family before his political career began- yet many people believed that the experience had given him something worthwhile. He certainly shouldn't have been elected based on his actual CV.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Isn't his old district still the murder capital of the nation?
Um....To the best of my knowledge, it has never been the "murder capital" of the nation.

Malanthrop is probably under the mistaken impression that Obama represented the entirety of the city of Chicago as a state senator. In fact, Chicago has, I think, about 20 state senators- so Obama represented roughly one 20th of the city.

Ironically though, the city of Chicago recorded its lowest murder rate in 40 years while Obama was still in office there, with about 15 per 100,000 citizens. That's quite high, but it's also a 40 year low, down from 34 per 100,000 ten years earlier. That is for the entire city, btw.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
But Chicago hasn't been the murder capital of the nation for as long as I've been alive, I don't think. I mean, I've lived in Detroit and Gary, both of which have, and have also lived in Chicago, and the difference in violent crime between those cities is really quite stark.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I suppose you could count Gary as part of Chicago. Washington DC is much worse, though, as is New Orleans. We usually rank in the middle of the "top ten".

There is a lot more to Trinity UCC than the Reverend Wright. The church has done an enormous amount of good in the city. And from people who know Rev. Wright personally, I got the picture of a brilliant, scholarly, charismatic man who, as he aged, got more entrenched in some very bitter ideas and his own ego. Remember his age. He experienced first hand enough discrimination to embitter many people. And are his conspiracy theories (while wrong headed) so hard to understand? Trinity has a extensive program caring for the victims of AIDS - people who were ignored by the government and most of society. While he was serving in the military (Marines and Navy) the US government was conducting the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on black men.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
This kind of thing is easy to check.

Go Baltimore!
 
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Go, Plano!

I was really surprised at New York, New York.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
kmbboots, they'd certainly be hard to understand from the perspective of someone whose view on race relations is, "There aren't any real problems anymore, and if there are, people should just get over them."
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
And who are those people? Black people of course. Black people are responsible for modern day racism! Think about it! It makes total sense!
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
kmbboots, they'd certainly be hard to understand from the perspective of someone whose view on race relations is, "There aren't any real problems anymore, and if there are, people should just get over them."

Ya got a point, there, Rakeesh.
 
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
This kind of thing is easy to check.

Go Baltimore!

And that's the reason why Baltimore's called "The City that Bleeds." Of course Detroit bleeds more than Baltimore does or anyone else, really.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I was back in Detroit not too long ago to visit family, and I have to admit that it's horrifying to see what's happened to the city. It's a gutted shell, with the middle class struggling to get by in the suburbs and the wealthy literally barricaded in crumbling mansions. It's Thunderdome.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's how I remember Detroit, and I lived there ten years ago.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Murder Capital

http://current.com/items/88913927/chicago_in_the_lead_for_murder_capital_2008.htm

New Orleans has highest per capita, Chicago highest total.

Here's Chicago's own page for reported homicides, rarely a day goes by.

http://chicago.everyblock.com/crime/by-primary-type/homicide/


True, Obama was only a senator for one district, the 13th district...the worst.

Here, 27 school students shot so far this year in Chicago. (South side, ie 13th district)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVhXbjxUdVE

Black people aren't responsible for modern day racism but many black leaders use it as a tool to gain power and wealth.

Here, since you like Wiki so much, read about Black Liberation Theology. Marxist, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

KMboots, thanks for bringing up the AIDS issue. Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.


The pastor reportedly said in a sermon just after 9/11, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."..wright.

Here's a good sermon for you:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58858

Thanks for the numerous examples of other Democrat cities that have elevated the minorities.

Here's a challenge for you, find a non-democratically controlled city that compares to Baltimore, Detroit, etc. In every city you've mentioned, there are ten Jeremiah Wrights scraping the dollars from peoples desperation.

Glad to see Obama had a change of heart after 20 years. I doubt you'd be as forgiving of a clans man who had a change of heart. Oh, I forgot about Robert Bird, great Dem leader.
2 time Dem Majority Leader and KKK "Exalted Cyclops". Let me restate, doubt you'd be as forgiving a Republican clan member.

You delude yourselves. You're fun to talk to though.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
You delude yourselves. You're fun to talk to though.
Sadly, you're getting a bit less fun. It's like you're trying to channel the Freepers' Greatest Hits, often all in one post. So far you haven't accused the Clintons of having somebody murdered as part of a cocaine deal; I can only assume that you're saving that one for when someone actually mentions the Clintons. [Smile]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
KMboots, thanks for bringing up the AIDS issue. Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.
I don't think you actually want to play this game of taking one inflammatory person and assigning his values to the entire group.

quote:

Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.
-Rush Limbaugh

That's from the man the leader of the GOP apologizes to, that some say is the de facto leader of the GOP. That took me about fifteen seconds.

Of course, that's the kind of misogynistic message I could see you believing, so it may not be very persuasive to you.

quote:
Thanks for the numerous examples of other Democrat cities that have elevated the minorities.
Ha! 'Elevated'
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I was back in Detroit not too long ago to visit family, and I have to admit that it's horrifying to see what's happened to the city. It's a gutted shell, with the middle class struggling to get by in the suburbs and the wealthy literally barricaded in crumbling mansions. It's Thunderdome.

You might be interested by this. It's a TIME article on Detroit's decline and possible road to renewal. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, the magazine is still sitting on my desk.

And yeah, it is depressing. I don't go into the city much anymore, only for concerts or games or what not. But it seems like in the last year or two, Detroit has become a disease whose effects are spreading into what had been immunized suburbs. I live in a nice suburb and until recently never imagined we'd be in any sort of trouble. The decline of the Metro area has been sharp and shocking.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
No one challenged any of my points?

Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.

I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group. There's a black pastor at my church and plenty of black members. They come to be freed from sin rather than the white man's thumb. It is fair to point out Wright's church is the largest black church in the nation and Obama's spiritual home for half his life.

Now that you bring up the Clintons, maybe you should click on the link with Wright's speech and listen to what he had to say about them. I didn't hear anything but thousands of cheers from the white hating crowd.

You can't deny the hypocracy. If the largest white church in the nation railed on minorities to applaus and cheers, your judgement would be different.

Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.

What's going on with Kwame Kilpatric these days? Good to see democracy in action [Smile]
 
Posted by randomguy1694 (Member # 12009) on :
 
Something I've seen mentioned a lot here is education. What if you're from a country w/o good education? Does that mean that your vote doesn't count. The whole point of a republic is that the people decide who's in charge. If you weren't educated, are you not a person. I think that the only requirement should be that you are a citizen.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally by malanthrop:
Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.

What's going on with Kwame Kilpatric these days? Good to see democracy in action

Taxes aren't the reason we're in the shape we're in. A lot of industries that have recently left were offered tax free status to stay just to keep the jobs here, but they still left to go to places like Mexico. Some of them are starting to be replaced by green energy, like the solar power company that replaced the Maytag plant in Greenville. They came here because of Michigan's small business friendly tax code and special tax breaks for green power companies.

Taxes aren't the reason auto companies build cars in Alabama, it's because of labor costs. Those same companies by the way employ thousands of people in the tri-county area here for various high tech research areas of the auto industry. They want access to the high tech, highly educated work force in a very small area that doesn't exist in places like Alabama. And guess what, most of those people were schooled at U of M, MSU, Wayne State, Eastern Michigan U and Oakland U, all of which are state school partially funded by the taxes you're against. If I have to choose between the manufacturing jobs that Alabama has and the high tech jobs that those grads get, I'm going for the high tech jobs. Why? Because some day when those guys are out of work, it's going to be considerably harder for them to transition to a new industry than it will be for the high tech workers around here. And for that matter, the high tech area around here will draw in green jobs that will translate into green manufacturing jobs that won't be going to Alabama.

Long term, we win. Short term, we're suffering for a lot of reasons, not one. Some of them are our fault, a lot of them aren't.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
We can't ignore the auto unions impact. I'm an IT pro. Come to Tamba Bay, you'll get a job. Here's some names for your resume (L3, Sypris Electronics, AC4S, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Mitre Corp, Thermal Matrix, Johnson Controls, McDonnel Douglas, SAIC, APPTIS, Dataline, Boose Allen) No income tax, company freindly conservative state. Stay away from silicon valley, does that place even exist anymore? Taxed out of Cali.

Consumers always pay taxes, not companies. Taxes are just another operating cost that is passed on to the consumer. Tax the company and the prices go up for the consumer, they lay off employees or move away. Tax the rich real estate owner, rents go up. Tax the evil oil companies, prices go up at the pump.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Helps a lot when you have a Defense Department sugar daddy I suppose. You just rattled off a bunch of companies that wouldn't exist if not for a $650 billion defense budget. In other words? You're being subsidized by all those tax dollars, but at the federal level rather than the state. You okay with that?

Either way, you're still wrong. Labor is a vastly more significant factor than taxes.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Defense of this nation is the primary purpose of the federal government. No problem with that. Labor costs have a lot to do with the local government. If there are high taxes, income, sales, realestate, etc, the worker still needs to survive. They pay what they have to in the area. Give me 60k where I live over 100k in NYC or LA.

You fail to mention the taxes associate with labor the employee already pays. Match all funds for SS and Med and LI. Labor is expensive, especially for a GM union worker averaging 75 an hour for tightening a nut trying to compete with Japanes paying half that. I'll take $30 an hour in Alabama, live good and the company save money. We have the 2nd highest capital gains tax in the world. The government collects more money from oil companies in the form of taxes than they earn in profits. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html Talk about windfall. Politicians scream for the little guy who's being gouged by oil companies but ignore the 80+ cents a gallon you pay at the pump. It should be illegal to include the price. The sign should say 1.20 plus tax and you get charged 2 when you pay.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Apples and oranges much? You're talking about the taxes of cities like LA and NYC but we're talking about Detroit versus the south. Detroit is not a prohibitively expensive city to live in. It's not an expensive city to live in at all. There are ritzier suburbs, like any city has, that are more expensive, but I'd be surprised if a majority of auto workers lived in Grosse Pointe and Birmingham.

Furthermore, you know what makes up the differences between the US labor costs and the Japanese labor? Legacy costs. It's health care benefits mostly, and when the new agreements go into effect in the next two years, Ford's per hour labor will be on par with Toyota's and Honda's for their American labor.

And all without a single change to state or local tax codes, but through new labor agreements.

What else ya got?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Come to Tamba Bay, you'll get a job.
Of course, you'll get a job where a) you're treated like crap and b) have to deal with Floridians daily.

*shudder*
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Defense of this nation is the primary purpose of the federal government. No problem with that.

So, basically, your argument was 'taxes are the problem! except for the taxes which support my examples!'
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
malanthrop,

quote:
Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.
[Smile] You're such a twerp. I didn't say that he was the leader of the GOP, I said that he was a) a man the leader of the GOP apologizes true - that's a fact - and b) that some say Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, something which is also true.

quote:
Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.


I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group.

In addition to being a twerp, you're also a liar.

quote:

Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.

This might have a sliver of a chance of being persuasive if I wasn't quite sure that, even during the Reagan and Bush years, you either were or would have been complaining that the wealthy were paying more than their fair share.

So you're already a twerp (for sidestepping a direct question while appearing to respond to it but not doing that at all), and a liar (for saying one then and then claiming not long after that that you didn't say it, it seems likely you've got the memory of a hummingbird (or did you think 'the wealthy' weren't paying more than their fair share under Bush, Bush Sr., or Reagan?
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
Michael Steele is the chairman of the GOP. That's not the same as being leader.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Apples and oranges much? You're talking about the taxes of cities like LA and NYC but we're talking about Detroit versus the south. Detroit is not a prohibitively expensive city to live in. It's not an expensive city to live in at all. There are ritzier suburbs, like any city has, that are more expensive, but I'd be surprised if a majority of auto workers lived in Grosse Pointe and Birmingham.

Furthermore, you know what makes up the differences between the US labor costs and the Japanese labor? Legacy costs. It's health care benefits mostly, and when the new agreements go into effect in the next two years, Ford's per hour labor will be on par with Toyota's and Honda's for their American labor.

And all without a single change to state or local tax codes, but through new labor agreements.

What else ya got?

Fairly short sighted. Detroit is the end result of the direction NYC and LA are headed. Detroit is past the point of no return, the taxes and hostile business environment have already driven away 50% of the population. Population is half what it once was and a gang banging Sh## hole...Of course the property values are low. New labor agreements will definitely help the automakers and they'll open up their facilities in business freindly conservative states. Which party supports big labor and is pushing card check?????
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
malanthrop,

quote:
Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.
[Smile] You're such a twerp. I didn't say that he was the leader of the GOP, I said that he was a) a man the leader of the GOP apologizes true - that's a fact - and b) that some say Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, something which is also true.

quote:
Good to see the church is helping cure a disease designed to kill black people, or at least that's what that church believes.


I wasn't assigning Wrights values to the entire group.

In addition to being a twerp, you're also a liar.

quote:

Detroit is very sad indeed. The perfect example of what results in highly taxed Dem states. The auto industry isn't dead. They're building them in Alabama and Georgia. Michigan and Detroit illustrate what happens when the wealthy end up paying more than their fair share. They move and open up shop elswhere.

This might have a sliver of a chance of being persuasive if I wasn't quite sure that, even during the Reagan and Bush years, you either were or would have been complaining that the wealthy were paying more than their fair share.

So you're already a twerp (for sidestepping a direct question while appearing to respond to it but not doing that at all), and a liar (for saying one then and then claiming not long after that that you didn't say it, it seems likely you've got the memory of a hummingbird (or did you think 'the wealthy' weren't paying more than their fair share under Bush, Bush Sr., or Reagan?

Running out of logical debate and resorting to insults are you?

Please point out what I lied about and what question I sidestepped. I'll gladly make you look stupid with a rational argument if you could get past throwing insults and calling me a liar without mentioning what it is I was suppose to have lied about. If you're calling me a liar for talking about Wright's position and stating it's valid to scrutinize a man's lifelong spiritual leader? Please don't sidestep and throw insults. Which party had a KKK leader as a majority leader ---twice---- (still in office), since you're bringing up Limbaugh who isn't even an elected official. I'll take Limbaugh over an "Exhaulted Cyclops of the KKK anyday"

Democrats say Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, it's the latest tactic to tarnish the GOP.

Wright believes AIDs was created by the government to target people of color......fact, not lie. Do you need audio clips?

Sorry, your president spent 20 years in a racist church. You are the liar and sidestepper. I can always tell when you fools are getting pinned in a corner. If you can only: call me a racist, insult me or call me a liar you only hurt your cause and prove your irrationality. You have no rational argument.

[ March 30, 2009, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Sorry, forgot the tax response.

Yes, wealthy pay more than their fair share. Top 2% of income earners pay 90% of taxes.
Bottom 40% pay no taxes.

Speaking of Limbaugh and NYC: Here's a very wealthy man who announced today he's leaving NYC due to the tax increases. He won't be the last.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_033009/content/01125108.guest.html

They just lost millions in tax revenue.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
You mistakenly quoted instead of edited.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
Michael Steele is the chairman of the GOP. That's not the same as being leader.

Huh? I'm speachless.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
From malanthrop:
Fairly short sighted. Detroit is the end result of the direction NYC and LA are headed. Detroit is past the point of no return, the taxes and hostile business environment have already driven away 50% of the population. Population is half what it once was and a gang banging Sh## hole...Of course the property values are low. New labor agreements will definitely help the automakers and they'll open up their facilities in business freindly conservative states. Which party supports big labor and is pushing card check?????

Wow.

I don't even know where to start.

Actually, I do know where to start, but I've decided that doing so will have no effect.

I have a feeling that if I got into a specific refutation of your tax theory, and went into the social problems in Detroit that exploded in the 60's and plagued the city for decades after that until now, talked about race relations, riots, white flight, and the slow decline of the industry due to bad labor agreements, short sightedness, and a host of economic factors outside their own control, you'd come back and say: "Yeah, yeah sure there was that, but then there's those pesky taxes!"

Add to that the fact that I really don't think you know anything about the metropolitan Detroit area. I live here. You live in "Tamba Bay." If you want to continue to rail on about taxes, go for it, but you're going to have to back it up.

PS. Even the poor pay sales taxes.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Fairly short sighted. Detroit is the end result of the direction NYC and LA are headed. Detroit is past the point of no return, the taxes and hostile business environment have already driven away 50% of the population. Population is half what it once was and a gang banging Sh## hole...Of course the property values are low. New labor agreements will definitely help the automakers and they'll open up their facilities in business freindly conservative states. Which party supports big labor and is pushing card check?????

Two things that can (and do!) disprove your theory involving red state vs. blue state commerce and business potential.

1. Which states, red or blue, generate more of our GDP per capita and house our most productive businesses?

2. Do the blue states create a federal surplus that is used to cover greater needs of the red states, or do the red states create a federal surplus that cover greater needs of the blue states?

If you understood the ramifications behind the answers to these questions, you would see the weaknesses behind your propositions.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Huh? I'm speachless.

Promise?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.

And if I asked you why white flight happened, I suspect your answer would be "because of Detroit's oppressive taxes!"

And that's where your argument falls apart. This is normally where I'd launch into a multi-paragraph ad hoc essay (a posting style which I'm sure Hatrack has come to know and love [Smile] ) on why you're wrong and the real social ills that caused it, what it consisted of, and the effects it had on the metropolitan area.

But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
He is receptive in spirit. The issue is one of comprehension and self-estimation.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I would agree that blue states bring in more money for the federal government due to their higher populations, more people to pay federal taxes. The blue states also have higher representation due to population. If all states had equal electoral votes, the reds would win every election. I'm quite sure NYC alone has an incredibly high contribution to the fed tax rolls simply due to Wall Street. Your per capita angle is supported by the top 2% paying 90% of the taxes and the extremely wealthy needing to conduct business in major cities. If Bill Gates left Seattle, the per capita GDP contribution to the IRS would be a measurable decline for that city. Montana has a small population yet is vast. Federal dollars for the highways (a national interest) alone would be high per capita.

I was talking about states as stand alone entities. Which states have the highest defecits, red or blue. Which states have the highest unemployment, red or blue. Which states have the highest crime, red or blue. California is the sixth largest economy in the world but has a 42 billion dollar budget defecit, rampant crime and pitiful educational performance.

I appreciate your logic and respectful tone.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
"But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."

I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.

Of course racial strife, auto unions and taxes contributed. My main point is if the jobs are ever going to return, they need to entice them back with a business freindly atmoshpere. That's low taxes. Do you know how Seattle got Boeing? Offered them NO taxes. Lots of jobs, good for the economy and people.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
California is the sixth largest economy in the world but has a 42 billion dollar budget defecit, rampant crime and pitiful educational performance.
America is the largest economy in the world and has an even larger budget deficit. There's a connection you're missing in this estimation and it is that the budget deficit you are looking at is largely a factor of size of budget during an economic crash, rather than something you can surgically undress and stick simplistically on 'liberal policy.'

quote:
If all states had equal electoral votes, the reds would win every election.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

If all states had equal electoral votes, obama won 29 to 22.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
"But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."

I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.

Okay, dude, this is getting old. If you're going to deride other people's 'culture of victimhood,' your first responsibility is to pull yourself off the cross and quit playing the People Used Nasty Words To Describe Me On The Internet card with tiresome frequency.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Samprimary:

You got me on that one. Forgot about the states that are smaller than counties where I come from. Just used to seeing mostly red.

I take it you're counting DC and came up with 51 states. (at least it wasn't 57 [Wink] )

And Bush stole the 2000 election 30 to 21
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
"But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."

I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.

Okay, dude, this is getting old. If you're going to deride other people's 'culture of victimhood,' your first responsibility is to pull yourself off the cross and quit playing the People Used Nasty Words To Describe Me On The Internet card with tiresome frequency.
You win, you've worn down another conservative. This conservative will keep his mouth shut next time you throw an insult or reply with, "You're not worth my time" I really wold like to hear some legitimate arguments, but you are ruled by emotion and have great difficulty articulating a point.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I find it strange that you would conclude that I have 'great difficulty articulating' points, where I actually find it remarkably easy.

Furthermore, I'm pretty certain that just about everyone reading this thread would agree that I'm more articulate and do a much, much, much better job of making my posts and points make sense than you do.

If you'd like to start making jabs about emotionalism and articulation, you probably want to have your own house in order, first.

quote:
I really wold like to hear some legitimate arguments
You are being provided with a hefty quantity of legitimate arguments.

That you are not comprehending or otherwise taking them into consideration does not make them non-legitimate arguments; you're essentially making an inverse "pearls before swine" accusation.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I find it strange that you would conclude that I have 'great difficulty articulating' points, where I actually find it remarkably easy.

Furthermore, I'm pretty certain that just about everyone reading this thread would agree that I'm more articulate and do a much, much, much better job of making my posts and points make sense than you do.

If you'd like to start making jabs about emotionalism and articulation, you probably want to have your own house in order, first.

quote:
I really wold like to hear some legitimate arguments
You are being provided with a hefty quantity of legitimate arguments.

That you are not comprehending or otherwise taking them into consideration does not make them non-legitimate arguments; you're essentially making an inverse "pearls before swine" accusation.

I had to look back, and you definitely are head and shoulders above Oro and Tom. Although most of what you've put forth are questions instead of answers.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:

Please point out what I lied about and what question I sidestepped

I already did that in the post you quoted, apparently entirely without reading.

But lemme break it down for you again, in a way that leaves you no wiggle-room. Mostly because I'm curious to see how you'll bullsh@# your way out of it.

quote:
Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.
You were a twerp for saying this because I didn't say Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the GOP. Consider yourself free to quote where I did, or cede the point. You were also sidestepping my claim that you didn't want to get into a discussion of a large group being criticized for the outrageous statements of one of its leaders. Wright for that church, Limbaugh for conservative Republicans.

I was right about that, in fact. You didn't want that discussion, which is why you sidestepped it.

You were a liar because in one post you said, "This church believes thus and so." Then in a later post in the same discussion you said, "I wasn't assigning Wright's values to the entire group." Hence, liar. It's pretty clear-cut.

quote:
Sorry, forgot the tax response.
You've still forgotten it, because you haven't answered my question as to whether or not you felt the wealthy paid more than their fair share back in for example Reagan's day, and before that.

quote:
This conservative will keep his mouth shut next time...
Here's a lie I wish was true.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Questions are better than empty postulates, which are, for the most part, what you continually assert.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Rakeesh:
"That's from the man the leader of the GOP apologizes to, that some say is the de facto leader of the GOP."

Great, so long as I preface a statement with "some say" I can skirt responsibility for what I've said. SOME SAY Jeremiah Wright is the de facto leader of the country.

I obviously need to be more specific with you. Jeremiah Wright does not speek for all black people but his views can be attributed to a member of his flock for 20 years, yes. I rebutted this by stating there is a black pastor at my church and blacks come to my church to be saved from sin not the thumb of whitey.

I wasn't sidestepping your statement:

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."
-Rush Limbaugh

It's a stupid statement, and you didn't ask a question.

"Vast right wing conspiracy"....Hillary Clinton
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.
Yeah, you're right. You're not even a little bit racist. Heck, you don't see race at all.

-------

quote:

"Vast right wing conspiracy"....Hillary Clinton

Out of interest, do you really believe there was not a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down the Clinton Administration?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
My Beloved Oxford English
quote:
conspiracy |kənˈspirəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot .
• the action of plotting or conspiring : they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Under the second definition, yes. Of course, if you take the more common definition, which is usually applied to covert plans and actions in a concerted effort, then it's arguable. The "vast right wing effort " would be a better choice of words, but lacks the punch of "conspiracy."

Of course, you could just as soon point out ways in which that effort was covert, and therefore a more traditional conspiracy. Conspiracies are not inherently "criminal," although the two are cognates for most people (if a word can actually be said to be a cognate only for some people is not something I can say for sure, but clearly the words often collocate).
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Malanthrop,

Hmmm...that's some pretty weak BS, malanthrop. I'm kind of disappointed. I was expecting more of a shotgun-spread of complaints, accusations, and distortions that didn't have anything to do with my post, but instead I only got a few.

quote:

Great, so long as I preface a statement with "some say" I can skirt responsibility for what I've said. SOME SAY Jeremiah Wright is the de facto leader of the country.

I obviously need to be more specific with you. Jeremiah Wright does not speek for all black people but his views can be attributed to a member of his flock for 20 years, yes. I rebutted this by stating there is a black pastor at my church and blacks come to my church to be saved from sin not the thumb of whitey.

I very much doubt you're unaware of the news recently concerning Steele and Limbaugh, so it seems likely to me that you're being deliberately obtuse. The deliberation at least is new.

Some people do say that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP. That's a fact. And not a couple of dudes at work, either. So equating that statement with, "Some say Wright is the leader of this country," is just plain stupid. Nobody says that.

As for how you lied, here's how, again. Consider it an opportunity to exercise your weaseling muscles. First you said, "This church believes this." Then later you say, "I wasn't trying to say the entire group believes this."

So either you're just incapable of remembering back to what you said yourself less than a day ago, or you were lying one in one of those statements. Which is it?

quote:
It's a stupid statement, and you didn't ask a question.
Your evasion is stupid. That statement wasn't my question. My question was, "Do you want to get into this game of assigning the statements of a leader to the entire group, like you were doing with Wright?" And then for an example I posted a quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Who even if we're going to put all else aside, is certainly one of the leading voices in conservative GOP politics.

That was my statement. You know it was. You have to know it by now, since I've explained it like seven times. You're either lying again in your pretense, or you are just incapable of understanding.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Huh? I'm speachless.

Promise?
Ah Rivka, I think this is you at your most vicious, that I've seen anyway. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
That's not vicious.

Sadly, that was me feeding the troll, even though I know better.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
How many liberals had even heard of the Reverend Wright before he became an issue in this last election? How many radio stations broadcast his Sermons to a national audience? How many people, liberal or conservative had any idea what he was saying in Jan. 2008.

By contrast, how many Americans are there who had no idea who Rush Limbaugh was before Jan. 2008? How many conservatives had heard of him before this last election cycle? How many radio stations broadcast his show? How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?
Millions and millions and millions. The vast, vast majority. Piles and heaps and almost all, I'd bet. Considering the country is pretty close to 50/50, 95% of whom have never listened to him, almost all.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Really? Never? He has had a nationally syndicated show for about 20 years. I detest the man, and have heard him (not by my own choice) several times over the years.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Considering the estimated minimum number of listeners as of 2006 (hardly his heyday) was around 7.5% of the voting age population of the US (and I doubt many people not of voting age listen, and that more conservatives than liberals listen), I am incredibly confident that more than 10% of conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly, and reasonably (edit: heck, extremely; I'm reasonably certain about 75%) certain that over 50% of conservatives have heard at least five or ten minutes of his radio show at least once.

I'm having a hard time finding other audience figures, but I'm seeing mentions that right now he's pulling around 20 million people regularly (that's around 10% of the voting age population of the US). And his audience numbers were almost certainly better in the late 90s, when his show was extremely popular.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I've heard over five minutes of the musical stylings of the Jonas Brothers in my life (although none of Rush Limbaugh). I don't believe your numbers - more than 10% of conservatives would first assume that he regularly has an audience of over 15 million AND that 100% of his audience are political conservatives. I'd love to see some proof that both are true.

On a more anecdotal basis, I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh and know only one person who does, and the vast majority of my aquaintance are conservatives.

If someone has this idea of conservatives being stupid and listening to Rush en masse and giggling delightedly, then they are wrong, and their mistake is caused by their prejudice.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Kat, considering that Rush is broadcast on 600 stations nationwide, I'd say it's a fair bet that more than 5% of the country has at least heard him on occasion.

Starting about a decade back, companies like ClearChannel and CBS began to buy up hundreds and hundreds of local radio stations (clearchannel now owns over a thousand I believe), and standardize their content in order to cut costs and maximize their advertising dollars. What happened? Conservative radio- the perfect format for a walmart-meets-telecommunication medium.

I never really believed that these companies were politically motivated to promote conservative nutcases- I just think it was a matter of expediency. I don't think "liberal" radio sells, because when liberalism packages itself as an "alternative," or "oppositional force," it sounds totally ridiculous/pretentious. I also think conservatism sounds totally ridiculous in that guise- but I also think conservative ideologies are easy to present on radio, and invite many more opportunities to whine and lambaste. This is of course my personal bias, but I tend to think a liberally skewed political show that was actually run in the same way as limbaugh's show would never work, because a liberal would have a much harder time avoiding the actual facts, distorting the basic issues, etc. This isn't because liberals are really morally better than conservatives- I just think conservatism is all about denial as an ideology.

I for one listen to a little bit of Rush on a regular basis- and used to listen to Michael Savage when I lived in the states. I usually turn Rush off because he's repugnant, but I used to be able to listen to Savage for hours because he was so obviously batty- there was something nonthreatening about his delusional conspiracy theories.

quote:
If someone has this idea of conservatives being stupid and listening to Rush en masse and giggling delightedly, then they are wrong, and their mistake is caused by their prejudice.
I for one, have found that nearly impossible to believe. Thank you for clarifying- I was wondering if you did listen to him.

I don't actually think Rush has very much capital outside the media. He's really terrible on radio, if you actually listen to him. He's droning and repetitive, consistently sounding insincere. He has the arrogant swagger of O'Reilly, minus 98% of the research O'Reilly does. He also flatly lies on a fairly regular basis, about a large number of things- there was a poll he discussed recently about his "approval ratings" in comparison with Obama's. The discussion had been set by an article which had compared the popularity of the two. Rush quoted the figure about himself from the article, but then quoted a figure about Obama's approval rating from an unrelated study, because it was 6 points lower than the approval rating sited in the article he was talking about. Anybody halfway tuned in would be wondering why he never sited Obama's number from the article comparing the two- that's a rather big lie of omission.

[ March 31, 2009, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
quote:
How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?
Millions and millions and millions. The vast, vast majority. Piles and heaps and almost all, I'd bet. Considering the country is pretty close to 50/50, 95% of whom have never listened to him, almost all.
Perhaps they do not listen to his show, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that more people over the last 10 years have known who Rush Limbaugh is than Jeremiah Wright.

The difference to me is that I think people like Rush Limbaugh are completely obliterating what conservatism should mean. I don't think the Republican party needs him, and I wish they would stop apologizing to him every time one of them gets a flash of nerve and tells him to go away.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
more than 10% of conservatives would first assume that he regularly has an audience of over 15 million

That sounds about right. There's a REASON he's had a syndicated show for so long.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The voting age population of the US is somewhere around 210 million people. For 10% of conservatives to listen to his show regularly would only require 10.5 million people to listen to his show, and, from wikipedia's page on him (which cites a source):

quote:
As of 2006, Arbitron ratings indicated that The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States.
So his minimal weekly numbers would only require about 75% of his viewers be conservative to have 10% of conservatives listening to him almost all the time, and by regularly I mean, say, a quarter to a half of his broadcasts. So I could easily see the number being higher. Indeed, I can hardly see how, given those numbers, 10% of conservatives aren't regularly listening to his show, unless you're assuming liberals are more than a third as likely as conservatives to listen?

I'm assuming the number of non-voting-age listeners are minimal, of course, but I doubt you'll dispute that.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Trinity USS has about 8000 members. Big for a UCC church, but not 13.5 million.

Here's another take on Trinity:

http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Ah, found a good source of the current audience number of over 20 million: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882947,00.html

If just three fourths of those are conservatives, that puts the percentage of his audience listening each week which are conservatives (not the percentage of conservatives listening regularly, which would almost certainly be higher) at around 15% of the conservatives in the US.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Fugu, I feel that I do have to point out that those numbers are going to be bouyed a little by the fact that in some of his affiliate markets, Rush is the ONLY game in town. He probably has a large number of passive listeners who are not politically much inclined one way or the other. Arbitron doesn't measure preferences for listening, only actual listening time (for the purposes of advertising). Given that, Arbitron is a very blunt tool for actually figuring out a market. The margin for error on the arbitron is also ridiculously wide- and the bigger the numbers get, the less accurate they will probably be.

Edit: I'd also be interested to know the effect of income on conservative radio listening. People with a higher income can afford the tools for, say, podcasting or other entertainment in their cars or commutes. I listen to podcasts- but Rush is also available in some of these formats. I've found it interesting that since I moved to Europe, I've been more than able to get almost the same exact kinds of media (and increasingly more of it) as I got at home. Only 4 years ago, the proposition would have been much more difficult.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, I don't think the numbers mean much of anything beyond that a lot of people listen, and almost certainly a large number of people in the US have heard him (and an even larger number of conservatives).

Heck, I've listened to more than ten minutes of Limbaugh once or twice, when in someone else's vehicle.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh and know only one person who does...
There are several Limbaugh listeners who post on this board.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I've heard over five minutes of the musical stylings of the Jonas Brothers in my life (although none of Rush Limbaugh).
I'm willing to go out of my way to avoid hearing Rush Limbaugh, and I've still heard better than 10 minutes of his broadcast. I'm not sure how you have managed to avoid hearing him unless you neither own a radio nor associate with people who own radio.

With 13.9 million listeners every week means many times more than that hear his program over the course of a year. Unless the average listener is a die hard ditto-head who listens to him every week, you are looking at well over a hundred million people who've heard him speak.


If as fugu suggested 75% of his audience are conservatives and the average listener tunes in 1/2 the time, you get roughly 20 million conservative listeners or nearly 20% of all conservatives. If the average conservative listener, tunes in only 1/4 of the time, you get twice that many total listeners. So the estimate that 10% of conservatives listen too him at least once a month is way too low to account for the number of people who listen to him regularly unless all 13.5 million listeners are die hards who never miss a week.

The Reverend Wright has a congregation of 8000. If you presume that only 1/2 of Rush's radio audience are regular listeners, Limbaugh's following is more than 800 times the size of Wright's -- which is a large difference even for those who are bad with numbers.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
I'm not sure how you have managed to avoid hearing him unless you neither own a radio nor associate with people who own radio.
If I remember correctly, Katie was raving about hearing "Hey Ya" for the first time about 3-4 years after it had been done to death on just about every radio station (probably the most played song that year). So I don't think Katie's radio listening habits are typical [Smile] .
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Trinity USS has about 8000 members. Big for a UCC church, but not 13.5 million.

Here's another take on Trinity:

http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html

Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I listen to talk radio everyday, during my commute to and from work. I find Rush's arrogance is off-putting. I like Denis Miller, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck. I've listened to some left talk show hosts and it has irritated me on the basis of argument. It often is full of many of the same accusatory and deflecting rationalizations I've read here. Conservative talk sites the constitution and our founding principles on a regular basis. Points out laws that are already on the books and simply not enforced. 50% of liberal talk is accusations of hypocracy, a truly lame defense of one's position. I don't know how many times I've heard Obama defend his budget with "Who are you to criticize, you spent....." Avoiding explaining ones position with accusations of hypocracy, prejudice, etc is truly pathetic.

There are many conservatives who are dissapointed with the GOP for the same reasons they are disgusted with the Dems. Throw GOP mistakes in my face and I think, yeah they suck too. Albeit just a little bit less, IMO. Lesser of two evils. The modern GOP is arguably not conservative at all. Case in point, John McCain who could easilly be a blue dog Dem. JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted. I prefer libertarian without the kooks. Now the choice in our two party system: Dems of 40 years ago or European Socialists.

Rather than explain one's position, redefine the language:

Illegal Alien - undocument worker or immigrant

Conservative - Old

Liberal - Progressive

Global War on Terror - Overseas Operations

Muslim Terrorist - Radical

Prisoner of War - Prisoner

Liberty - Equality of Result

Rifle - Assault Rifle

Pistol - Automatic Weapon

2nd Ammendment - Hunting Rights

Gun Collecter - Stockpiler of Weapons

Interrigation - Torture

Amnesty - Immigration Reform

[ March 31, 2009, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I don't know how many times I've heard Obama defend his budget with "Who are you to criticize, you spent....."
I don't, either. How many do you think?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Ahh, that was good. Not a whiff of an actual response to direct statements anyone has made, but instead a bunch of rambling generalizations almost completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Which is it, malanthrop? Do you assign Wright's values to his entire church (as you said you did), or not? If so, defend against this 'question' since I level the attack on the same grounds you did: Why do conservative Republicans think feminism was just a means for ugly women to get ahead in life?

If you're not willing to defend that statement as indicting all conservative Republicans, then you need to `fess up that you were full of crap about Wright and the opinions of members of his church.

Which, by the way, is hysterical. I could just as well speak with authority to the opinions of bulimic Plutonian vegans as you could to the members of that church, I expect.

--

quote:
I don't, either. How many do you think?
An even better question is, "Can you cite even one time President Obama defended his budget that way?"
 
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted. I prefer libertarian without the kooks. Now the choice in our two party system: Dems of 40 years ago or European Socialists.

Have you looked at the top marginal tax rates between the end of the second world war and the end of seventies?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Ahh, that was good. Not a whiff of an actual response to direct statements anyone has made, but instead a bunch of rambling generalizations almost completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Which is it, malanthrop? Do you assign Wright's values to his entire church (as you said you did), or not? If so, defend against this 'question' since I level the attack on the same grounds you did: Why do conservative Republicans think feminism was just a means for ugly women to get ahead in life?

If you're not willing to defend that statement as indicting all conservative Republicans, then you need to `fess up that you were full of crap about Wright and the opinions of members of his church.

Which, by the way, is hysterical. I could just as well speak with authority to the opinions of bulimic Plutonian vegans as you could to the members of that church, I expect.

--

quote:
I don't, either. How many do you think?
An even better question is, "Can you cite even one time President Obama defended his budget that way?"
I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation. They are free to choose a more fitting church if they disagree. The head pastor is the leader of the church, his positions are the positions of the church. I understand you like to use a single individual to disprove a point so I will concede there may be a few who ignore the ideology for one reason or another. I've repeatedly said I do not believe Obama truly adhered to the spew he submitted himself to for half his life. He sat there for political purposes. On the other hand, if I attended a clan rally, I doubt you would give me the same benefit of the doubt.

You keep bringing up the Femenism argument. First you attributed it to Rush, now you attribute it to conservative republicans. I've already addressed this issue. It was a stupid statement by Rush Limbaugh and you didn't ask a direct question about this statement. You made an assumption that I would agree and you are wrong. But go ahead and classify me a sexist if you like. I'll add that one to my list of defenses I've received so far: you're a racist, you're a homophobe, you're stereotyping, I won't waste my time with you, you're a hypocrit, and now you're a sexist. You keep suprising me, with avoidance techniques, thank you. I'll be more able to identify the BS tactics in the future.

Still waiting for a logical, rational defense of your positions.

[ March 31, 2009, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Trinity USS has about 8000 members. Big for a UCC church, but not 13.5 million.

Here's another take on Trinity:

http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html

Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.
No, Mr-Flailing-About-With-No-Actual-Facts, the link I posted was not from Trinity. It was from the United Church of Christ denominational website. The UCC has about 5,500 different churches and about 1.2 million members - the vast majority of whom are white, by the way.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Still waiting for a logical, rational defense of your positions.
You've received several but since you missed them let me explain.

I don't know anyone who agrees with everything said over the pulpit in their church -- do you? Presuming that members of a congregation agree with everything said over the pulpit in church is as fallacious as the assumption that all Rush Limbaugh fans believe every word uttered by him.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
No one agrees with everything in the particulars but the core tenents are undeniable. You keep pulling out the not everyone bs argument. Some people go to clan rallies for the beer, don't judge them as racists. See your false logic?

Kmboots....don't blame the Catholic church for pedophiles then since according to your logic, the Vatican has nothing to do with the Arch Diosese of Spokane.

Here's a few examples to prove my point about manipulative black leaders who use the people for political/finacnial and personal gain. They should all be in prison.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282009/news/regionalnews/rev__als_half_price_deal_on_1_8m_taxes_161708.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/barry-owes-277000-in-taxes/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jesse-jackson-amends-tax-returns-to-reveal-payments-to-his-mistress-695394.html

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

Kmboots....don't blame the Catholic church for pedophiles then since according to your logic, the Vatican has nothing to do with the Arch Diosese of Spokane.


Wha...?

First of all, can you admit that the website that I linked was not Trinity's website?

Second, the Catholic Church is considerably more hierarchical in structure and governance than the UCC. Considerably.

Third, that has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Third, that has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing.

That's this trolls main MO, neh? Change the topic to some other ridiculous assertion?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Trinity is part of UCC and you argue UCC's opinion of trinity is unbiased? You cited UCC's page as an alternative opinion of Trinity, it has everything to do with what we were talking about and it isn't an unbiased alternative opinion.

Convernient how you continually attempts to call me out for avoidance. Will you acknowledge that not everyone who goes to a clan rally is a racist?

Let me add "that has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing" to my list of:
you're a racist, you're a homophobe, you're stereotyping, I won't waste my time with you, you're a hypocrit, and you're a sexist of avoidance techniques.

I'll use one of your tactics. I'm not going to waste my time with your ignorance.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Clan =! Klan
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Avoiding explaining ones position with accusations of hypocracy, prejudice, etc is truly pathetic.
When I read this, I literally experienced a moment of intense full body giggles.

This was from the post just before that one:

quote:
Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.
:giggle:


So, do you get the rambling offhanded self-satisfied postulations from Dennis Miller, and the incoherent fantasy constructions from Michael Savage? I mean, really, Savage most reminds me of a conservative talk show host as played on the fake radio in a movie by an unsubtle director about American middle class ennui. You can just tune him in and get these serialized repetitive mantras and nicknames for every idea and public personality imaginable. It's as if Savage is written in order to mirror some unseen situation- meant to be a metaphor for some destructive force in the protagonist's personality, or the world.

Actually, come to think, Rush is even *more* like that. He always strikes me as a very poorly directed voice actor doing satire of conservative talking points.

quote:
No one agrees with everything in the particulars but the core tenents are undeniable. You keep pulling out the not everyone bs argument. Some people go to clan rallies for the beer, don't judge them as racists. See your false logic?
Now you've really forgotten what you were arguing for. We were talking about what Wright *said.* I wager you know nothing about the core theology of the UCC- and that theology is not spelled out in a speech which you did not even read.

So the question again, as it has been posed to you many times, is whether Obama should be held responsible for *Wright's* beliefs. You have not shown in any degree that Wright's statements, of which you actually remain ignorant (making this discussion increasingly taxing on everyone else because they have to spell it out for your lazy ass), are likely to be representative of his church. You have argued that Obama is responsible for the beliefs of his church. I grant that as mostly fair (to a point). I am willing to extend that to the prevailing outlook of his own particular congregation, during the time in which he attended the church. You have not gone an inch to show me what that outlook was, whether Wright's statements were representative of that outlook in general, whether the outlook was in a state of change, or in fact, anything whatsoever about any related matters.

The onus is on you. YOU- to substantiate any claim about Obama's beliefs. It is not sufficient to whine and moan about how the media (the "drive-by" media) doesn't do this for you. The media owes you and your ideas nothing of the kind. It is very easy to research the founding principles and prevailing attitudes of Obama's church, which is why, and I can guarantee this with absolute certainty, many journalists did that research, and found nothing surprising to report. These journalists then did their jobs, and reported on the nature of Obama's church- a nature which surprised no one. It is not their job to find *something* negative to report. Their job is to report what they have found.

Your job is to spout nonsense. Go ahead.

[ March 31, 2009, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
First, I didn't claim that the UCC link was unbiased or unaffiliated; I wrote that it was a different take from the garbage that you were spewing.

Bear in mind, though, (not that you will, but others might) that the UCC is a predominantly white denomination - about 85% and that they clearly don't think that Trinity is the festering boil of anti-white hatred that you do. Nor do most people who know anything about it beyond the clips we saw in the news during the campaign.

Rivka, yup. Talking points in a blender.

ETA: Is there some sort of Turing test we can apply here?

[ March 31, 2009, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Malanthrop,

quote:
I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.
Even if that weren't a faulty assumption, Wright's church is big. Thousands. Do you really imagine they only have one religious leader?

quote:
On the other hand, if I attended a clan rally, I doubt you would give me the same benefit of the doubt.

If you did? Well, you're finally right about something.

Anyway, it's been done to death that you were full of crap on the whole Wright argument. You'll never admit it of course, but that's no surprise.

You did lie about it, though. First you said, "They believe it," then you said, "I never said they believed it." Making you a liar so big your pants are surely aflame.

On a related note, I notice you haven't answered the question Tom and I asked about President Obama's defense of his budget.

How about this: I'll wait 24 hours. Surely you'll have regaled the forum with your nonsense repeatedly between now and then, so you won't be able to claim you were busy or forgot about it something. So do it. Find one time, even once, when Obama defended his budget by saying, "Who are you to criticize, you spent....."

If it's happened so many times you've lost track, certainly you can find one time.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Malanthrop,

quote:
I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.
Even if that weren't a faulty assumption, Wright's church is big. Thousands. Do you really imagine they only have one religious leader?


In fact, Trinity has six or seven associate pastors. Rev. Wright is the emeritus pastor and plans for him to step down from leading the congregation were in the works even before the campaign last year.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Avoiding explaining ones position with accusations of hypocracy, prejudice, etc is truly pathetic.
When I read this, I literally experienced a moment of intense full body giggles.

This was from the post just before that one:

quote:
Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.
:giggle: [qb]

----- You are truly dense...I didn't accuse her of being a hypocrit. I pointed out citing a UCC website to give an alternative opinion of Wright's church is not at all alternative. If I linked Clear Channel networks stance on Rush Limbaugh you would call me out on it, justifiably.

So, do you get the rambling offhanded self-satisfied postulations from Dennis Miller, and the incoherent fantasy constructions from Michael Savage? I mean, really, Savage most reminds me of a conservative talk show host as played on the fake radio in a movie by an unsubtle director about American middle class ennui. You can just tune him in and get these serialized repetitive mantras and nicknames for every idea and public personality imaginable. It's as if Savage is written in order to mirror some unseen situation- meant to be a metaphor for some destructive force in the protagonist's personality, or the world.

---------Wow...Thanks for your opinion, now go listen to NPR and Air America where they talk about how tone Michelle's arms are and how articulate Obama is.

Actually, come to think, Rush is even *more* like that. He always strikes me as a very poorly directed voice actor doing satire of conservative talking points.

--------I didn't denfend Rush but I sure can tell he bugs the hell out of you. In fact I stated his arrogance is off putting for me. I don't care what you think about an entertainer, that's a matter of taste.

quote:
No one agrees with everything in the particulars but the core tenents are undeniable. You keep pulling out the not everyone bs argument. Some people go to clan rallies for the beer, don't judge them as racists. See your false logic?
Now you've really forgotten what you were arguing for. We were talking about what Wright *said.* I wager you know nothing about the core theology of the UCC- and that theology is not spelled out in a speech which you did not even read.

--------I know quite a bit about Black Liberation Theology, hell I tool a class on. Here, read about it yourself. The core tenents are racist and marxist.
Wright's church is cited as the prime example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

So the question again, as it has been posed to you many times, is whether Obama should be held responsible for *Wright's* beliefs. You have not shown in any degree that Wright's statements, of which you actually remain ignorant (making this discussion increasingly taxing on everyone else because they have to spell it out for your lazy ass), are likely to be representative of his church. You have argued that Obama is responsible for the beliefs of his church. I grant that as mostly fair (to a point). I am willing to extend that to the prevailing outlook of his own particular congregation, during the time in which he attended the church. You have not gone an inch to show me what that outlook was, whether Wright's statements were representative of that outlook in general, whether the outlook was in a state of change, or in fact, anything whatsoever about any related matters.

----------I have in fact said repeatedly, I DO NOT BELIEVE OBAMA BELIEVED THE RACIST CRAP HE SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO. He went to that church for political purposes. The senior pastor is a white hating racist, you attend that church you are supporting that sentiment despite what may or may not be in your heart. What Obama is responsible for is being a political hack who would use the racist sentiments of that church to advance his political career. What is even more damning of him is he would discard his life long spiritual leader and God father to his children when it became politically necessary. I can't really assign any belief system to that man, I see nothing but a political opportunist.


The onus is on you. YOU- to substantiate any claim about Obama's beliefs. It is not sufficient to whine and moan about how the media (the "drive-by" media) doesn't do this for you. The media owes you and your ideas nothing of the kind. It is very easy to research the founding principles and prevailing attitudes of Obama's church, which is why, and I can guarantee this with absolute certainty, many journalists did that research, and found nothing surprising to report. These journalists then did their jobs, and reported on the nature of Obama's church- a nature which surprised no one. It is not their job to find *something* negative to report. Their job is to report what they have found.

-------- If the items reported "suprised no one" and they found "nothing negative" he wouldn't have left that church. The media did point out how the leader of the church he attended was a white hating racist, typical to Black Liberation Theology. I cannot believe that you are even attempting to argue the head pastor of a church for 36 years is not "representative" the views of that church. That is a completely rediculous argument. You continue to use your tired tactic of pointing to one possible exception as disproving the rule. Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.


[qb] Your job is to spout nonsense. Go ahead.



[ March 31, 2009, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
You messed up the quote blocks again.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.
You can start by answering my question.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Malanthrop,

quote:
I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.
Even if that weren't a faulty assumption, Wright's church is big. Thousands. Do you really imagine they only have one religious leader?


In fact, Trinity has six or seven associate pastors. Rev. Wright is the emeritus pastor and plans for him to step down from leading the congregation were in the works even before the campaign last year.
He was the HEAD PASTOR ro 36 years until the camapaign caused problems in 2008. He was the Head Pastor of the church Obama went to for 20 years. I must be crazy to think he was significant in any way.

Pastor Emeritus
The title "Pastor Emeritus" usually refers to a pastor who has been involved greatly in a congregation's life. This pastor may have been the one who founded the particular church body, or one who had just retired.

Sounds like someone who has/had very little impact on the church.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Actually, he could start by going back like a week and a half (minimum) and answering some of the many questions he's either outright ignored or shotgun-response answered.

But your question is a recent and clear-cut question for him to do one of those two things with.

ETA: It's only been two hours, so statistically speaking I'm not surprised you haven't answered.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.
You can start by answering my question.
No, I don't believe a vast-right wing conspiracy went after the Clintons.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
They may seem like shotgunning since I'm up against the Borg. I'm beginning to believe you people just do this to affirm your own beliefs rather than interact with a different opinion.

If you have a direct question, ask it. Your avoidance tactics are getting really old.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
They may seem like shotgunning since I'm up against the Borg. I'm beginning to believe you people just do this to affirm your own beliefs rather than interact with a different opinion.

If you have a direct question, ask it. Your avoidance tactics are getting really old.

Why do you feel your "up against" anyone? I was on this forum for over a year before any of my threads garnered 9 pages of posts. Maybe you're new here so you're not used to who talks in what way. I hope you'll stick around, but you do seem to be somewhat defensive, it would serve you well to just relax and not feel like folks are gunning for you.

Perhaps you should contribute to a few threads that are not volatile subjects so people get used to how you write and you get used to them.

We've had quite a few people suddenly show up with all their big ideas, fast links to wikipedia or www.uberconservative.com, avoid responding to points for fear of looking stupid, and then getting angry when somebody called them on it.

Some folks are not being very nice, I'm sorry you're getting that sort of reception, but I am fairly certain the animosity is coming from both directions at this point.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
They may seem like shotgunning since I'm up against the Borg.

*amused*

Among the people talking to you are several liberals, a couple conservatives of various flavors, and some people who are less easily tagged.

The one thing we have in common is that we think you're a slippery, lying weasel.

(That, BlackBlade, is closer to vicious. [Wink] )
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
No, I don't believe a vast-right wing conspiracy went after the Clintons.
Well, that's nice to have answered; it says a lot about you. But I actually meant my other question: how many times (or, for that matter, when -- singly) did Obama actually say anything like what you're attributing to him in an attempt to defend his budget?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.

Alright, here's a new tactic: Produce for me the tax rates of the cities and states you're talking about. And more specifically to Detroit, pinpoint the end locations of the diaspora of people leaving.

I'm generally fairly willing to take a lot of things on faith when discussing subjects here, but your refutation of every one of my points has been some variation of "high tax rates."

Okay, if high taxes are the source problem and low taxes the all powerful solution, show me all the data to prove it. I think it's true that high taxes can drive business away and low taxes can lure them in, that's why Chicago stole Boeing Corporate HQ from Seattle, and that's why Deleware is a corporate mecca. But I think you're vastly overstating their importance in relation to other issues, with specific respect to the problems that have been mentioned in the last two pages of this thread.

So, go ahead. I'm willing and receptive to you dropping some knowledge on me.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/republicans-have-lost-credibility-says-obama/54685/on

"When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility," Obama said responding to a question during his maiden press conference as the US President.

"Now, this budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. Because of the massive deficit we inherited and the enormous costs of this financial crisis"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-by-the-President-on-the-Budget/

"When asked to respond to Republican criticism of his administration's spiralling spending, Mr Obama suggested that his critics had short memories because he inherited a deficit of more than $1 trillion from George W. Bush."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5972097.ece
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
What's your point?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.

Alright, here's a new tactic: Produce for me the tax rates of the cities and states you're talking about. And more specifically to Detroit, pinpoint the end locations of the diaspora of people leaving.

I'm generally fairly willing to take a lot of things on faith when discussing subjects here, but your refutation of every one of my points has been some variation of "high tax rates."

Okay, if high taxes are the source problem and low taxes the all powerful solution, show me all the data to prove it. I think it's true that high taxes can drive business away and low taxes can lure them in, that's why Chicago stole Boeing Corporate HQ from Seattle, and that's why Deleware is a corporate mecca. But I think you're vastly overstating their importance in relation to other issues, with specific respect to the problems that have been mentioned in the last two pages of this thread.

So, go ahead. I'm willing and receptive to you dropping some knowledge on me.

http://www.mibazaar.com/fastestgrowingstates.html

Fastest growing first to last. (Bottom ten is larger due to ties of equal suckiness) Check for yourself.

Utah, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Georgia, South Carolina to...................Maryland, West Virginia, New York, New Jersey, New Hamshire, Connecticut, Pensilvania, Vermont, Maine, Ohio, Rhode Island, and last place MICHIGAN (percent growth -.5).

Go Utah, sorry Michigan.

Here's the tax burdons. The list is mostly flipped on its head.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita

For good measure, Forbes list of fastest growing Metro Economies.......pretty much falls right in line.

Go Alabama, Geogia, Utah and Texas.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/30/economy-cities-alabama-biz-cx_bw_0130econcities.html

Can't forget unemployment rates:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/

Sorry Michigan's last again, but there's hope California's not far behind. Move to The Dakotas, Wyoming, or Utah, gtg.

I can't find much on Detroit taxes except there are 500 million in unpaid taxes owed there. That can't be good. It's beyond the breaking point, they could bring investment back through corporate incentives though. There are plenty of unemployed willing workers.

What blows my mind is Michigan is beautiful and Utah looks like a wasteland. Plus it's difficult to get beer over 3.2% in Utah. As with anything in life, there are many contributing factors that are undeniable. Racial tensions in a given area can't be changed overnight but the government could incentivize the city to industry. With as much talk we've heard about New Orleans, I think Detroit has been ignored. I'm against much of the bailout, but if any city deserves bailout money, it's Detroit. Clean it up and sell it to industry.
(not literally sold)

I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan but I did like Roger and Me. What I saw in that movie was greed on everyone's part. Union workers unwilling to give concessions to a struggling industry. Industry only concerned with the bottom line. Government only concerned with tax revenues. Attempting to change Flint into a tourist trap. Tourism wouldn't employ all those people but it was hoped would bring outside dollars in. Maybe it's a catch 22, how does a government lower taxes with so much public need? Raising taxes to meet the needs seem to be a short term solution for a state.

Are states rights getting in the way? I suppose if all states had equal laws and industry and taxes were federalized, there would be no reason to go to Utah or Alabama.

[ April 01, 2009, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
Hahaha, I still love the disconnect in ideas that your posts bring. Utah looking like a wasteland (I agree) and the alcohol laws have little to do with the taxes. Utah is just a desert with lots of dust and the buildings reflect it. You also get a lot of smog. The alcohol laws are a reflection of how the local state government legislates morality. (I grant the reason they give is that it will help decrease public drunkeness and help curb drunk drivers, but I find it deliciously ironic that the reddest state in the nation doesn't believe in personal responsibility for ones actions. [Smile] )

But more to the point, there are other factors that are taken into account in population growth than just taxes. You're mixing causation and correlation here. This can be seen through your own links. Wyoming is #8 on population growth, right? Yet they're #2 on highest taxes. North Carolina is # 3 on fastest growing, yet #29 or about half way down the list for tax burden.

What's more, the difference in taxes between folks from NC and MI is about $350. That's not an overly large number. Or at least not one that I'd typically take into account.

A better approach* to see why those states top the list of population growth would be to look at the average number of persons per household/a fertility rate. Here's a link that does just that.

You can't measure people leaving states by which states have population growth. It's like comparing apples with oranges. You have to find statistics talking about inter-state emigration/immigration. It eliminates babies from being taken into account.

*I qualify this as a better approach because new people being born into the state is a direct increase to the population and is a causal reason. [Smile]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vadon:
Hahaha, I still love the disconnect in ideas that your posts bring. Utah looking like a wasteland (I agree) and the alcohol laws have little to do with the taxes. Utah is just a desert with lots of dust and the buildings reflect it. You also get a lot of smog. The alcohol laws are a reflection of how the local state government legislates morality. (I grant the reason they give is that it will help decrease public drunkeness and help curb drunk drivers, but I find it deliciously ironic that the reddest state in the nation doesn't believe in personal responsibility for ones actions. [Smile] )

But more to the point, there are other factors that are taken into account in population growth than just taxes. You're mixing causation and correlation here. This can be seen through your own links. Wyoming is #8 on population growth, right? Yet they're #2 on highest taxes. North Carolina is # 3 on fastest growing, yet #29 or about half way down the list for tax burden.

What's more, the difference in taxes between folks from NC and MI is about $350. That's not an overly large number. Or at least not one that I'd typically take into account.

A better approach* to see why those states top the list of population growth would be to look at the average number of persons per household/a fertility rate. Here's a link that does just that.

You can't measure people leaving states by which states have population growth. It's like comparing apples with oranges. You have to find statistics talking about inter-state emigration/immigration. It eliminates babies from being taken into account.

*I qualify this as a better approach because new people being born into the state is a direct increase to the population and is a causal reason. [Smile]

Babies aren't workers.

Population growth-low unemployment-low taxes-fastest growing economies

It was a four prong approach with some deviation. Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.

There are anomalies in any statistical correlation, ie Wyoming and this wasn't exactly scientific. Wyoming is an amazing state a lot of wealthy people are buying ranches there. Also, the tax burdon can be high in a strong economy, so they go hand and hand. The mistake is made when taxes are raised in a bad economy.

I'm not from Utah and I agree, it's nasty. Which makes it even more perplexing that it is growing so fast - booming economy - low taxes with a low unemployment rate while prettier states are shrinking?
(had to link them for you)

growth - booming economy - low taxes - low unemployment rate
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
I'm fine with taking population growth out of your formula for trying to figure out unemployment numbers and economic growth. I was just taking an issue with how you were saying that high state taxes are the reason people are moving out of Michigan and using population growth to defend it. The population growth statistics you provided take children into account because the info comes from the census. So even if babies aren't workers, it doesn't change the fact that they're counted.

I don't want to get into the debate about Detroit, I'll leave that for folks like Lyrhawn. My purpose was and is to ask that if you're going to try to argue that people are 'running' from Detroit/Michigan, that you find numbers of people actually leaving (emigration) as opposed to a simple population decrease statistic.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm sure unemployment is the main factor for a population decrease, not sure if any state would have a decrease in population if an iron curtain were placed around it. IMO high taxes harm economic growth and therefore economic development. People need to make a living and if you're in a place you love and have a good paying job taxes alone aren't going to push you away. If your unemployed or just barely getting by, either go to where the jobs are or become a criminal. Detroit has seen a fair bit of both of those options.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.
I'm not sure what a "relative correlation" is in this case, or how you'd measure it. As an example: the reason Utah's on the top of that list is almost exclusively due to its birth rate.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Utah 4th lowest unemployment rate, 11th lowest tax rate and fastest growing.

Mich highest unemployment rate, 10th highest tax rate and declining population.

I'm going to get govt stats and crunch the numbers. Something I've always wanted to do anyway. I'll throw in crime rates as well. It'll take some time and it could very well dispell my assumptions.

Breaking news, California just announced an additional 1% sales tax. I'll have to adjust the list. Do you think losing another 1% of the population's expendible income will hurt or help the economy of California? Does 1% really matter to a person who is struggling financially?

One thing is undeniable about taxes, low tax states attract retiring baby boomers. I've been reading that has a lot to do with Utah. Lots of people with lots of money to spend in their retirement years.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.
I'm not sure what a "relative correlation" is in this case, or how you'd measure it. As an example: the reason Utah's on the top of that list is almost exclusively due to its birth rate.
Oh I'd say illegal immigration is significant as well. [Wink]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure unemployment is the main factor for a population decrease, not sure if any state would have a decrease in population if an iron curtain were placed around it.

Uhuh. And how is employment in the fastest growing populations in Africa? Population decreases are tied to standards of living. Standards go up, populations stop growing.

I must stress that a "population decrease" is not the same thing has people having fewer children. The states you cite, Michigan and Utah, are experiencing massive migrations at an inverse rate- people are leaving michigan, and people are still going to Utah. That tells you little about the long term economics of high tax rates or low tax rates- it tells you something about where people are more willing to move in the moment- which is of course to a place with growing employment opportunities and lower taxes. Do you really think that state of affairs can last indefinitely? Growth eventually stops, and shifts somewhere else more hospitable- you have made that point yourself in this thread. You have never established the effect of tax rates on long term anything.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm sure unemployment is the main factor for a population decrease, not sure if any state would have a decrease in population if an iron curtain were placed around it.

Uhuh. And how is employment in the fastest growing populations in Africa? Population decreases are tied to standards of living. Standards go up, populations stop growing.
Huh??????????

You said, "Population decreases are tied to standards of living. Standards go up, populations stop growing"

Well if I follow your logic, Detroit must have the highest standard of living in the US.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Read my edit- I was talking about birthrate, rather than migration.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.
I'm not sure what a "relative correlation" is in this case, or how you'd measure it. As an example: the reason Utah's on the top of that list is almost exclusively due to its birth rate.
Oh I'd say illegal immigration is significant as well. [Wink]
I totally agree illegal immigration has an impact as well but do you think illegal employees count in unemployment statistics? Unemployment rates are calculated based upon unemployment compensation applications. If I'm not mistaken, that's rather difficult to get for an illegal alien.


Wow, it must be REALLY great there if the unemployment remains so low and illegal immigrants are flocking there for jobs.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=utah+population+growth&aq=f&oq=
Facts
Utah's population tends to be younger (27.1), lives longer (77.7), has higher fertility rates (2.68) and more persons per household (3.13 persons).

Utah's population growth of 29.6% more than doubled that of the nation (13.2%).

Of All The Fifty States, Utah Has...
The highest rate of job growth - (4.5%)

Highest literacy rate

4th highest percent of high school graduates

11th highest percent of college graduates

7th lowest violent crime rates

3rd longest life expectancy
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Here's your exact assertion:

"Standards go up, populations stop growing."

Michigan must be awesome, I'm moving there. Babies are being sucked back into the womb.

We're comparing Utah to Michigan and you bring up Africa??

[ April 01, 2009, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
[Taunt]

I'll address your point about the "longterm effect" of hight tax rates and low tax rates.

I've brought this up as well. Strong economies can afford high tax rates.....to a point.

People will move to a place that is economically to their advantage.

If you want to talk about "long term" then my perfect case in point is this.....California.

Once a great destination for retirees. They just added and additional 1% to their sales tax. Will people want to remain? Maybe one percent this year is nothing but when added to last years gas tax and the prior years property tax increases, eventually there is a breaking point. They'll milk it until they can't get anymore blood out of that turnip because the turnip has move to Utah.

You speak of long term, tax what you should, not what you can. Your residents are doing well, don't squeeze them.

A new one came out today. Congress is proposing a tax for each song that is played on the radio...no BS. I'm not a whiner about taxes but they need to end somewhere. With the govt, there is no end. They sit up there and think about what types of taxes they haven't thought of yet. Speaking of, the 45% death tax was to expire in 2010, your great leaders eliminated that today. You can't even die without paying your fair share.

[ April 01, 2009, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/republicans-have-lost-credibility-says-obama/54685/on

"When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility," Obama said responding to a question during his maiden press conference as the US President.

"Now, this budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. Because of the massive deficit we inherited and the enormous costs of this financial crisis"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-by-the-President-on-the-Budget/

"When asked to respond to Republican criticism of his administration's spiralling spending, Mr Obama suggested that his critics had short memories because he inherited a deficit of more than $1 trillion from George W. Bush."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5972097.ece

Not even one of those quotes or links says what you said Obama says so regularly.

It's OK, though, you've still got thirteen hours.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
"When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility," ....Obama

They may have doubled what they inherited and that's his defense for tripling what he's inherited....and you buy it? Do you know what exponential means?

They both suck.
2000 Republican = 1960's Democrat
2000 Democrat = European Socialist

Both parties are big government, I wont deny
that.

Maybe you need to read it again. The oldest trick in the book. My 5 year old pulls it on my 9 year old.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
They both suck.
2000 Republican = 1960's Democrat
2000 Democrat = European Socialist
...

With that kind of scale what would the Canadian Liberal and NDP equal? (Or the current European governments?)
 
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

2000 Republican = 1960's Democrat
2000 Democrat = European Socialist


I asked you this the last time you made this assertion: have you looked at what the tax rates were, say, between 1945 and 1979?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So you're arguing for Mormon theocracy in the rest of the country? [Wink] Or are you saying that the primary reason for those stats is the tax rate?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Maybe you need to read it again. The oldest trick in the book. My 5 year old pulls it on my 9 year old.
Maybe you need to find what you said happened so often, instead of ignoring direct questions about where the quote is.

You don't have it yet. Less than half a day for you to find what you claimed happened so often you couldn't remember how many times it was said.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan but I did like Roger and Me. What I saw in that movie was greed on everyone's part. Union workers unwilling to give concessions to a struggling industry. Industry only concerned with the bottom line. Government only concerned with tax revenues. Attempting to change Flint into a tourist trap. Tourism wouldn't employ all those people but it was hoped would bring outside dollars in. Maybe it's a catch 22, how does a government lower taxes with so much public need? Raising taxes to meet the needs seem to be a short term solution for a state.
The problem with the correlations you're drawing is that you're ignoring outside information. Michigan has the highest unemployment because the auto sector has been the hardest hit by the economic downturn, and where are there more autoworkers than any other state? Michigan. The governor has cut services and waste dramatically in the last six years in an effort to not raise taxes, and in doing so has also cut taxes pretty severely for a multitude of businesses and has offered a multitude of tax credits, and yet still businesses are leaving for places like Mexico, which makes the tax question moot. You can't get a better offer than zero taxes.

Flint for example collapsed when the factories left. What's left is one of the most dangerous cities in the country, and like you said, the problem was far more labor than it was taxes, as is the general problem with the auto industry. The US auto companies are in a tailspin because of overly generous union contracts inked during boom times when SUVs could be sold at huge markups and made Ford and GM billions and billions of dollars. Those same contracts at the dawn of the 21st century because a huge weight that they couldn't pull, especially when the rug got yanked out from under SUV sales and the press and Congress continually cast them in a negative light despite ample improvements in quality rankings from where they were in the 80's and early 90's.

Put that together with a banking and credit crisis and you have a massive drop off in the total number of cars being sold in the United States, which means an already struck industry is left reeling and has to shed workers by the tens of thousands and shutter plants to remain a viable company. Add to that a multi-decade decline in US manufacturing due to low wage overseas jobs and you have the foundations of the reasons for Michigan's current troubles.

Do taxes play a role? Yes. Michigan is I think the only, or one of the only states in the country with no state corporate income tax, but they make up for it in other ways. A wide range of tax credits has been offered to a lot of different companies and a lot of them are coming here, but in fits and starts, and it'll take a long time to replace a 100,000+ auto jobs.

My main point, in all this, is that you're far too unidirectional. Taxes are a piece, and in this case I think a smaller piece, of a much larger and more complex puzzle, but you're seizing a single piece of the puzzle and calling it the lynch pin. You're dismissing far more important factors.

Western growth for example is extremely short sighted. Yes, the West is growing by leaps and bounds for a variety of reasons, but it's not going to last for much longer. In a couple decades, the West will be far more expensive to live in than traditionally settled parts of the country, and it will have nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with the environment. Systemic drought is going to be a huge problem in the west, and parts of the south. It will skyrocket utilities costs, and will create an interstate battle for resources. The Plains states are in for the same trouble. States like Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska are living on borrowed time in a lot of places. Water has always been an issue for them since heavy rain/drought cycles are a fairly known pattern, but the Ogalala (spelling is off) Aquifer, which was once a vast source of water that stretches across several states, has been overstretched beyond its capacity to refill with runoff and rainwater, and will soon be unable to support life as we know it on the Plains. Add to that the fact that nuclear power plants get shut down when there's a water shortage. It happened in Georgia this past Summer. Georgia being one of your vaunted tax haven states.

Luckily, a fifth of the world's fresh water is locked up in these lovely lakes that surround my awful, destitute, tax hungry state of Michigan. And you can't have any of it.

I'm not asking you to look outside the box, as helpful as that might be. I'm just saying that there's a lot more IN the box than you're currently paying lip service to, and you might find it easier to discuss things here if you don't make most of your posts look like cherry picking displays of smugness.

PS. Damn, I ended up writing a multiparagraph essay anyway. Guess I just can't restrain myself.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Of course, higher growth of any kind can also be an indication of how much room is left for growth...

For instance, MA is pretty flat, growth-wise for several reasons, with taxation being a lesser issue, even though I presume MA is pretty high up on the list. It's biggest problems are a simple lack of space, and the fact that it has been so developed/had so much growth (it's had 200+ years on most of the rest of the nation after all) that most of it's growth is made by converting out of one type of industry into another (which MA has an advantage at, IMO, with it's large pool of highly educated workers, thanks to all the universities around the state). BioTech is quickly supplanting software here as far as the latest and greatest economic growth goes.

-Bok
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Lyrhawn-
I think blaming labor costs for the auto industries problems fails close scrutiny. You might want to look into that more, as your post seems to indicate you think labor is the biggest problem facing the detroit automakers.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I think it's one of the biggest. I think legacy costs are the single biggest factor, and of those, health care costs add the most cost to individual cars over the price that someone would pay for a comparable car made by the Japanese. But all of those fall under the umbrella of labor.

I think they got caught flat footed by a drastic shift in demand for different types of cars, but I don't think that was specifically their fault. Everyone asks why they kept selling SUVs for so long and it's because they were a cash cow for more than a decade. But even still they had a nice lineup of smaller cars, and Ford has traditionally done extremely well in this area, even as the F-150 is their best selling vehicle even now. Besides, the Japanese and Korean automakers were pushing SUVs just as hard during that time period, and to this date still offer a lot of them as well. The difference between Japanese and US labor is almost entirely health care costs. Once the new health care agreement goes into effect in 2010, Ford's hourly rate, including all legacy costs, will be one dollar on average more than Japanese domestic auto plants, which goes to show the wide disparity that existed before this deal. And it's a deal that wasn't possible before this crisis because the UAW was unwilling to make these sort of concessions until the situation had gotten this bad, but I think PART of why it got so bad was the extremity of the labor cost disparity.

There's also the credit crunch, and a grandiose overestimation of the capacity of the US automarket to absorb new car sales. These companies were planning for 16 million units in a market that after this is over will probably settle back into the 12 million range, and right now only support 9 million. So they were making too many cars, and though they've scaled back dramatically, there was still a huge cost to fix the problem.

My main point was that taxes weren't a major factor in their slow crawl towards disaster.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

Education is definitely a wrong answer.
What do you think costs more a government employed secretary or a public secretary?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
One example? You mean like the government health care systems in many other countries, that have lower costs, higher patient satisfaction, and better health outcomes than ours?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
The Czech republic is an example. Government health plans allow for doctor visits at approximately 3 USD- I have known people (only residents, not even citizens mind you) who have had surgeries performed under their public health plans for nothing past the original doctor's referral. In fact, I'm waiting for my public health to kick in (along with my official residence papers) in a few months so that I can get my tonsils removed finally.

The Czech public health plan is kind of a simple concept that works fairly well. Doctors are not exorbitantly compensated for their work, and make only slightly above the average salary. Everyone who pays taxes here has the option of paying into public health, which is around 3% of your income- at a flat rate. This means that for someone like me, my health care will cost about 40 dollars a month, and will be all inclusive. A few people pay a whole lot more, but since it's at a flat rate, it will never be a prohibitive cost- and if you make a ton of money, you can always opt out of public health and get private insurance.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

Government health care.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

Government health care.
That's a prediction, not an example.

I'm asking for cost of services not cost to you. Section 8 housing might be free for the resident but the amount PAID is more than the going rate. I'm in that predicament, I don't want sec 8 in my house but it's guaranteed rent that is higher than prevailing rent. The gov pays more than the free market.

One example, please....
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

Government health care.
That's a prediction, not an example.
Wrong! The US isn't the only country in the world. All those countries which have some form of either Government health care or Government health insurance, have health care costs that are a fraction of what we pay for our private system in the US. It's not just one example, its many.

quote:
Give me one example of a government project that has concluded under budget?

Off hand, roconstruction of I15 in Salt Lake County which concluded in 2001 concluded under budget and ahead of schedule. I'm sure if I put more than 2 seconds into it, I'd come could come up with some more examples.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Canadian or Czech health care is hardly a prediction

As for another example:
quote:
Qinshan Phase III Unit 1 and 2 located in Zhejiang China are powered by two CANDU 6 reactors, designed by AECL, are owned and operated by the Third Qinshan Nuclear Power Company Limited. The first two CANDU units in China were delivered four months ahead of schedule and under budget. The project holds the record for the shortest construction schedule ever accomplished for a nuclear power plant in China.
http://www.aecl.ca/Projects/CANDU-P/Qinshan-P.htm

AECL is a crown corporation from Canada.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

Government health care.
That's a prediction, not an example.
Wrong! The US isn't the only country in the world. All those countries which have some form of either Government health care or Government health insurance, have health care costs that are a fraction of what we pay for our private system in the US. It's not just one example, its many.

quote:
Give me one example of a government project that has concluded under budget?

Off hand, roconstruction of I15 in Salt Lake County which concluded in 2001 concluded under budget and ahead of schedule. I'm sure if I put more than 2 seconds into it, I'd come could come up with some more examples.
That's not a service, that's a project. Projects end, services don't.

I'm not asking what YOU pay but what they cost. Section 8 housing is free for the resident but pays more than prevailing rent where I live. One example please.

By the way, I'm a government contractor. I guarantee the government overpays for short term contracts.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.

Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.

Government health care.
That's a prediction, not an example.

I'm asking for cost of services not cost to you. Section 8 housing might be free for the resident but the amount PAID is more than the going rate. I'm in that predicament, I don't want sec 8 in my house but it's guaranteed rent that is higher than prevailing rent. The gov pays more than the free market.

One example, please....

Government.

Health.

Care.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I'm not asking what YOU pay but what they cost. Section 8 housing is free for the resident but pays more than prevailing rent where I live. One example please.
You've already been given you the example, repeatedly, it is Health care. And I'm not talking about what you pay --- I'm talking about total cost. If you compare the annual per capita cost for health care between the US and any country with government health care or government Health insurance, you will find that the cost of health care is double or more in our private system than in any government system.

What's more, you will find that those systems have better outcomes than the US system by every measure. People in fully developed countries with government health care or insurance (every industrialized nation except the US) have better health, longer lives, lower infant mortality, better chance of surviving a major illness and are more satisfied with their medical care -- and at half the cost or less.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
you will find that the cost of health care is double or more in our private system than in any government system.
Looking at per capita rates, we're presently at somewhere around two and a half times the industrialized world's median cost for healthcare.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
By the way, I'm a government contractor. I guarantee the government overpays for short term contracts.
So you are cheating us by overcharging the government for short term contracts?

Thanks for letting us know.

BTW, those short term contracts have become commonplace because of the unsubstantiated theory that private contractors can do the work cheaper than direct government employees. That theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but it does end up lining the pockets of people like you at the tax payers expense.

How can you in good conscience criticize people on the dole, when by your own admission you are overcharging the US tax payers for what you do?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'll give you a few examples of government services that have performed as projected:

- social security
- mecaire
- medicaid

Maybe govt health care will break the trend?

Don't get me wrong, it's not the government's fault. Govt of the people, by the people, for the people. People are greedy.

I want another house. I could sign up as a section 8 landlord and get a guaranteed $1300 per month right now or I could put it up on the public rental market and maybe get $900. Personally, I'll take the $900 over some piece of crap who doesn't care about where he/she lives since mommy gov is paying for it.

Waiting for your example???

I'll give you a few:

Unemployment fraud.
Medicare fraud.
Medicaid fraud.
Social security fraud.

My son had his teeth cleaned when I was in the military, they charged the gov for fillings. Many medicair recipients have unnecessary testing and doctor visits...chargeable to govt. I've known many people who were fired or quit yet the employer reported a layoff so they could get unemployment benefits. My brother in law burned his brain out on drugs at 20 years old but will collect social security since he found a doctor who contested he was crazy. If the government pays for medical care, every time my child gets the sniffles, I'll take him to the doctor, just in case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the government, I'm blaming human nature. Government provided is a blank check to the biller and a free pass to the consumer. Not efficient at all.

Breaking news: Merril Lynch spent 22 times the bonusses of AIG (billions this time) with govt bailout money. If the govt would've let them go bankrupt they would've received nothing and not been able to pay them. All you'll do is blame Merril Lynch for the bonuses. The gov't is the sucker for greedy people. I rail against the govt as an enabler because the consumer and the provider will take advantage of the blank check.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
malanthrop:
quote:
Give me one example of a government project that has concluded under budget?
The Rabbit:
quote:
Off hand, roconstruction of I15 in Salt Lake County
malanthrop:
quote:
That's not a service, that's a project
Um.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Well malanthrop, you were lying about the Obama budget stuff too it seems. You couldn't find a real example of something that happened so very often.

But I have to admit this latest stunt of yours is even better: "find me this thing." *several people give you that thing* "No no, that doesn't count, find me THIS thing!"
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Thanks, I did say project and you could probably find an example of projects that are within budget. (rarely) We were discussing health care costs....

Project: reconstuction ends.
Service: never ends, social security, medair, medical coverage, military defense, things that have no completion date.

your I15 project had and end date and a limited budget. Services don't end or expire. Give me one example that has performed at or under budget. I'll help you out...

govt services:

education
postal
social security
medicair
medicaid
national defense


Defense is the only one I see that is actually perfoming (yet still cost too much) others cost too much and underperform.

Please, one example of a service that is successful and meets budget. (one or the other if you can't think of one that measures up to success and cost)
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well malanthrop, you were lying about the Obama budget stuff too it seems. You couldn't find a real example of something that happened so very often.

But I have to admit this latest stunt of yours is even better: "find me this thing." *several people give you that thing* "No no, that doesn't count, find me THIS thing!"

I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own. Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Bush sucked, Obama sucks even more. I'm not here to defend Bush and I won't.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Please, one example of a service that is successful and meets budget.

Government health care
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Prediction, not example.

Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Your government, not mine
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Perhaps you have missed the existing government health care programs in other countries? Or is your thesis only that the US government is necessarily incapable of providing a decent service, and other countries are not hindered that way?

I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, since health care programs in other countries (and their superior performance) have been brought up repeatedly to you just a few posts above.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
:as gently as possible:

Mal, your lack of understanding of the situation is causing problems in this discussion.

quote:
Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
You don't get it.

First, you need to consider (not necessarily accept, but just consider) that Obama's plan calls for the kind of spending that will both enlarge the deficit, and eventually lead to an economic recovery. I don't personally think this is guaranteed, and I don't think a guarantee has been implied by Obama's administration- nor can one be made.

Next, consider that deficit spending takes many guises. Deficit spending, you will come to understand if you study the basics of our economic situation, is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many ways to spend that money, some possibly good, some not. So to say that Obama is justifying a deepened deficit by pointing out Bush's track record is establishing a false equivalence. Obama believes that the deficit spending under Bush was money spent which would not lead to economic growth, and which probably hurt growth in the long term. Obama wants to spend into a deficit with different aims.

Not all deficit spending is created equal. As the simplest analogy possible, let's suppose the national debt is a credit card with a limit of 10,000 dollars: Bush had the card, and let's suppose he spent 1,000 dollars on candy and cigarettes. The deficit is now 1,000 USD. Let's suppose now that Obama has gotten the card, with this 1,000 dollar deficit. He has decided that buying candy and cigarettes is bad for the economy. Rather than buy nothing and just tax his friends to pay back the mistakes (which you also oppose, by the way), he wants to now spend 3,000 dollars on a new tool set. That tool set is going to enable him to get some things done around the house, and find more work in the future, since he'll be better equipped. He will be in debt for the tools, but he will have opportunities to pay it back- whereas with candy and cigarettes, once you consume them, they're gone, and you're worse off than when you started.

You need to deepen your understanding of these issues before comparing the two situations. I guarantee you that Obama has not used Bush's deficit as a precedent for his own spending. He doesn't have to, because FDR did the same thing Obama is trying to do, and it appeared to work at the time. Deficit spending is not all the same, and as long as you continue to think about it in such a simplistic way, you will never understand that.

In fact, in general you need to educate yourself much more broadly on what you've been talking about. Your conclusions, not surprisingly, have fit well with how much you actually know. Your ideas are about as narrow as your actual field of knowledge.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.

Don't be a dick. You want medicare used as an example because it doesn't work. People are talking about other countries that have systems that work, because they are GOOD EXAMPLES. Can we not know the full effects of such systems if they were applied in the US? Of course we can't. But we would be pretty freaking surprised if they worked everywhere else, and not in the US.

Seriously. Don't be a dick.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, since health care programs in other countries (and their superior performance) have been brought up repeatedly to you just a few posts above.
He knows that. How can he not know it? It's common knowledge. So his only recourse is to pretend it doesn't matter and exclude it, which is exactly what he's doing. It's not a matter of reading comprehension.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Perhaps you have missed the existing government health care programs in other countries? Or is your thesis only that the US government is necessarily incapable of providing a decent service, and other countries are not hindered that way?

I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, since health care programs in other countries (and their superior performance) have been brought up repeatedly to you just a few posts above.

If you define superiority as access, you might be correct. Everyone has access in Cuba but they still suck. Ameriacan pharmecutical companies develop the drugs. The best doctors in the world are American doctors. Capitalism does have its downfalls but it drives innovation. An American doctor will not deny you a hip replacement because someone younger needs a hip. Other countries ration their care and suck off of American capitolistic innovation.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.

Why not use the health insurance given to Federal employees. That is also a current US government healthcare program.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Here's a great example of socialized medecine that works so well. Local European source.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566241/Sufferers-pull-out-teeth-due-to-lack-of-dentists.html
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own.
Obama isn't trying to justify his budget based on the mistakes of others, he is explaining that these expenditures are necessary to fix the mistakes made by the others. That is substantially different.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Cuba is not a good example.

People have given you lists of places that have, as I noted before (but apparently you didn't read):

1. Lower costs

2. Higher satisfaction

3. Better outcomes

That's what is meant by better.

Given that many of the successful gov't health care programs are single-payer health insurance, with all the providers still being private, I see no reason there won't still be competition among doctors and pharmaceutical companies.

And if you're annoyed at that reason for denying a hip replacement, how do you feel about someone being denied a hip replacement in the US because they don't have insurance?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And if you're wondering, England isn't known as one of the best government health care programs, but it still has lower costs, higher satisfaction, and better outcomes.

Would you like me to dig up some articles on people in the US dying because they couldn't afford treatment, if we're trading stories about the deficiencies in medical systems?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.

Why not use the health insurance given to Federal employees. That is also a current US government healthcare program.
Health insurance provided to federal employees is sitll just insurance. Insurance the federal employee can choose to accept or deny and the worker must pay for. Socialized medical care is insurance for all for nothing. If you want to pay what a federal employee payw per month for his/her healthcare coverage, absolutely I agree. It's not free. Gov't employees have great insurance but it still requires a premium.

I sit next to a GS11 and my company's insurance is less. Pay attention to the cost instead of focusing on the coverage. Just because a govt employee has it doesn't mean it's free and everyone should get it.

You want the "same coverage" as a government employee, great it should be the "same cost" a govt employee pays. Not free, not national or universal. They sell it to you as free though.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own. Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Bush sucked, Obama sucks even more. I'm not here to defend Bush and I won't.
No, you didn't. Instead you linked to some quotes that only slightly resembled what you said they would. That's a very different thing, and it's your usual method of avoiding an argument you won't win around here. The only question more puzzling than why you'd waste your time in such obvious BS is why so many of us waste our time responding to you. I guess the answer is the same-we just can't help ourselves:)
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own. Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Bush sucked, Obama sucks even more. I'm not here to defend Bush and I won't.
No, you didn't. Instead you linked to some quotes that only slightly resembled what you said they would. That's a very different thing, and it's your usual method of avoiding an argument you won't win around here. The only question more puzzling than why you'd waste your time in such obvious BS is why so many of us waste our time responding to you. I guess the answer is the same-we just can't help ourselves:)
I linked to quotes of Obama dismissing critisism of his budget by pointing to the previous one. That is no justification. If you can't see it, that's your problem. How many parents have asked their kids, "If Joe jumped off the bridge, would you too".

Don't defend your mistakes with the mistakes of others. Don't justify your misdeeds with the misdeeds of others. This is my gripe with so many of you. You can't logically defend your positions so you scream hypocrisy. When pinned into a corner, out comes: you're a hypocrit, you're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a homophobe, you don't know what you're talking about, you don't understand or I'm not going to waste my time with you.

The more time I spend in her with you, the more clearly I see your bs.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
*sigh* Rabbit has already explained above why this latest spin of yours is bogus. And I don't even know who has accused you of hypocrisy lately. Certainly not me, even though it would be an accurate criticism. Ahh well.

President Obama didn't say what you said he said so often you couldn't count it, and your flimsy attempts to claim he did aren't fooling anyone except maybe yourself.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Health insurance provided to federal employees is sitll just insurance. Insurance the federal employee can choose to accept or deny and the worker must pay for. Socialized medical care is insurance for all for nothing. If you want to pay what a federal employee payw per month for his/her healthcare coverage, absolutely I agree. It's not free. Gov't employees have great insurance but it still requires a premium.
Medicare is also just insurance. Canada's health care system is also just insurance, but its one insurance program (single payer) rather than hundreds of competing insurers. And it turns out to be both more cost effective and provide better health outcomes than the US system.

Take 10 minutes to look into what you call "socialized medicine" in most of the OECD countries and you will find a great variety of approaches most of which by your definition are insurance plans not socialized medicine. The programs most people are proposing for the US are also national health insurance programs, not socialized medicine. You are fighting against a straw man of your own design that has no bearing on an real proposals being considered.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Project: reconstuction ends.
Service: never ends, social security, medair, medical coverage, military defense, things that have no completion date.

Uh-huh. Re-read your challenge. You asked for a PROJECT. When you got a project, you said "No, not a project, a SERVICE." Don't lay your communication problems on other people.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Twisting semantics. Social security is a retirement plan and the statement they send me every year talks about my account. Problem is, there is no account. The money I've put in is gone. The pyramid schemes of the government would land a civilian in jail. I'm sick of your sematics. Prove to me I'm wrong: if a premium is required will the unemployed and poor have coverage? Will the "premiums" be the same for everyone? A GS6 pays the same insurance premium as a GS14. If the govt came out with an insurance plan where everyone paid the same regardless of income and the payment was required, I would agree with you.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Prove to me I'm wrong:
You set the bar so that it's impossible to jump, then insist you'll be satisfied with nothing less.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Project: reconstuction ends.
Service: never ends, social security, medair, medical coverage, military defense, things that have no completion date.

Uh-huh. Re-read your challenge. You asked for a PROJECT. When you got a project, you said "No, not a project, a SERVICE." Don't lay your communication problems on other people.
I already acknowledge my mistake in this. You are absolutely correct...I did say project without thinking....fingers faster than mind...health care is not a project, it's a service....sorry for the err.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Give me one example of a govt service that is within budget and successful.

What I refer to as "socialized" medical care is not insurance. The human body is the same wether you are rich or poor. I understand the owner of a Laborghini paying more insurance that the owner of a 1979 Ford Pinto, but human bodies are equal. If the govt puts forth a universal insurance plan where everyone pays the same, I'm all aboard. If the premium isn't the same for the same coverage, it's socialism. They may argue that the "people" deserve the same coverage as a govt employee, but unless the people pay the same "premium" as a govt employee, it's mute.

[ April 02, 2009, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Give me one example of a govt service that is within budget and successful.
Most government services have fixed budgets which cannot be exceeded. Public schools don't get to spend more money than budget, nor do fire departments or police forces and these services are often implemented in an effective and efficient manner.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
Sorry to revert to an early point in the conversation, but:

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

I want another house. I could sign up as a section 8 landlord and get a guaranteed $1300 per month right now or I could put it up on the public rental market and maybe get $900. Personally, I'll take the $900 over some piece of crap who doesn't care about where he/she lives since mommy gov is paying for it.

I live in Section 8 housing. It is the best apartment that I could afford on my wages and I pay every expense out of my own pocket.

I find your characterization of section 8 housing residents misinformed and offensive. Do you actually read what you write or do you find that you kind of drift in and out?

If you're trying to hold the moral high ground, ridding your posts of phrases like "some piece of crap" (in reference to fellow human beings) is a good place to start.
</annoyed>

Carry on everyone.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.

"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. "
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html

If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines. Most people go to FedEx and UPS to send packages since they are cheaper than USPS. There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

You want the "same coverage" as a government employee, great it should be the "same cost" a govt employee pays. Not free, not national or universal. They sell it to you as free though.

There is no one here claiming that free health care is possible. It is not possible. However, there are many systems through which better care is provided to more people, for less money. There is a simple reason: a well run single payer system can provide more of its resources to recipients than private insurance does in practice. This is simple- privatized health care naturally seeks methods of paying the least possible, while gaining the most in profit for the companies involved. At a certain point, this process works against competition, and we get diminishing outcomes. This is why in the US we pay more per capita than any other country for healthcare, and we have inferior outcomes and satisfaction.

We are already paying twice as much in total health care costs per capita than any other country does. Why do you think that is? What we get in medical advances is a great outcome of that system, but this has not worked to increase overall outcomes, when compared with countries that are still spending less. Obviously, BY DEFINITION, we are doing something wrong- we are not doing all that we can.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.

"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. "
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html

If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines. Most people go to FedEx and UPS to send packages since they are cheaper than USPS. There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.

Fair enough, but I still feel the USPS does an effective job handling the mail. I doubt that everyone would amass wholesale to FedEx and UPS if they were permitted to deliver the mail. Mail has also in part been replaced by email, and yet the USPS is still relevant.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
quote:
Give me one example of a govt service that is within budget and successful
Sewage.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines.
Possibly, but that wasn't the question. You were asking for successful government services that operate within their budget. Since most government services are subject to a fixed budget, all that is left is successfulness and USPS seems to be at least reasonably successful.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

You want the "same coverage" as a government employee, great it should be the "same cost" a govt employee pays. Not free, not national or universal. They sell it to you as free though.

There is no one here claiming that free health care is possible. It is not possible. However, there are many systems through which better care is provided to more people, for less money. There is a simple reason: a well run single payer system can provide more of its resources to recipients than private insurance does in practice. This is simple- privatized health care naturally seeks methods of paying the least possible, while gaining the most in profit for the companies involved. At a certain point, this process works against competition, and we get diminishing outcomes. This is why in the US we pay more per capita than any other country for healthcare, and we have inferior outcomes and satisfaction.

We are already paying twice as much in total health care costs per capita than any other country does. Why do you think that is? What we get in medical advances is a great outcome of that system, but this has not worked to increase overall outcomes, when compared with countries that are still spending less. Obviously, BY DEFINITION, we are doing something wrong- we are not doing all that we can.

Now we get to the bottom of it. "Overall outcomes" I know socialism is a dirty word, but I was born poor and worked very hard. Why should I pay for someone else's health care. I understand the elderly and truly needy, they are already covered under our current system. I shoveled sand into a cement mixer during the school year and worked 96 hours per week during the summer to pay for college. I am successful due to my hard work, why should I contribute more towards medical coverage than anyone else. I'm happy to give more to suplement truly needy people but I have no sypmpathy for the rest. Medicare, Medicaid is for the poor. Universal is for everyone. I won't deny it, I push six figures but ten years ago I supported a family on $200 per week. If you are still in the same position you were ten years ago, it's not my problem. If they want to nationalize healthcare for fairness purposes, it should cost the same for everynone.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.

"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. "
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html

If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines. Most people go to FedEx and UPS to send packages since they are cheaper than USPS. There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.

From your link:

"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. "

How is that possible? I send letters - messages on pieces of paper - by FedEx all the time. How is that illegal? I don't use it for everything because it is enormously expensive compared to the USPS.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I'm sure you do. Put a letter in a regular sized envelope and take it to Fed Ex. See what happens. You ever get a letter or post card from Fed Ex....no way. It's illegal.

You can send whatever you want inside the "package" but it isn't a "letter"

You get packages from FedEx and letters from USPS. Thats the law.....look it up, I'm not really going to argue it with you.

Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.

Where do you go when you have a heavy box to send? You don't think the same company could send a light letter? When you want to send something "efficiently" ie overnight, where do you go?

Govt can't compare.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So the big difference that makes it legal is that I put the letter in a FedEx envelope?

Come to think of it, though, even that isn't true. I do have the option of using my own packaging with FedEx.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.
That's not technically correct. The monopoly is over "non-urgent" mail. FedEx could, if it wanted, deliver "urgent" letters in any form factor it desires, but it makes economic sense for them to standardize on a form factor.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.
No its not. People send letters and other messages on paper or other material media by FedEx and UPS express mail all the time. The USPS competes directly with FedEx and UPS for the express letter delivery market and does so very effectively.
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/608.htm

5.0 Private Express Statutes
5.1 Private Express Statutes
5.1.1 Legal Foundation
By the laws known as the Private Express Statutes, Congress has generally conferred on the USPS the exclusive right to carry letters for others over post routes. USPS regulations under the Private Express Statutes are in the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 310 and 320, as amended by final rules published in the Federal Register...

5.1.2 Definition of a Letter for Private Express
For the Private Express Statutes, a letter is a message directed to a specific person or address and recorded in or on a tangible object. A message consists of any information or intelligence that can be recorded on tangible objects including, but not limited to, paper in sheet or card form, recording disks, and magnetic tapes...
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Please read the link.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-03-24.asp

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n2/ant_v1n2_post.html
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
Consider the following:

15 lb medium sized box from Salt Lake City, UT to Cle Elum, WA. Declared value: $500

UPS: Next Day Air- $96.44 (Friday Delivery)
Second Day Air- $41.30 (Monday Delivery)

USPS Saturday Delivery- $69.15
Overnight (Friday Delivery)-$69.15
Priority Mail (Monday Delivery)-$19.85

To me, it's a wonder UPS is competing with the Postal system. By your original challenge, the USPS meets the criteria of being cheaper than private sector shipping.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Read about it yourselves, just google "postal monopoly"

When I was in the Navy I oredered a replacement doorknob for my shop, it cost $120 in 1999
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Please read the link.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-03-24.asp

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n2/ant_v1n2_post.html

Okay, I read all three links. The first is apparently a link t a blog hosted by something with the initials fff. The second seems to have something to do with the Cato Institute (I've heard of that!). The third has "reformed" in the url, for what that's worth.

Now, should I click on the links and check out the actual sites?
 
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I'm happy to give more to suplement truly needy people but I have no sypmpathy for the rest.

What's your definition of a truly needy person?
 
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Please read the link.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-03-24.asp

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n2/ant_v1n2_post.html

Okay, I read all three links. The first is apparently a link t a blog hosted by something with the initials fff. The second seems to have something to do with the Cato Institute (I've heard of that!). The third has "reformed" in the url, for what that's worth.

Now, should I click on the links and check out the actual sites?

[ROFL]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
If you don't trust my links, just google "postal monopoly" and pick your own sites to read about it.
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
You mean like the one I just posted about a half-hour ago, where I quoted the actual regulation granting the post office its monopoly?

quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/608.htm

5.0 Private Express Statutes
5.1 Private Express Statutes
5.1.1 Legal Foundation
By the laws known as the Private Express Statutes, Congress has generally conferred on the USPS the exclusive right to carry letters for others over post routes. USPS regulations under the Private Express Statutes are in the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 310 and 320, as amended by final rules published in the Federal Register...

5.1.2 Definition of a Letter for Private Express
For the Private Express Statutes, a letter is a message directed to a specific person or address and recorded in or on a tangible object. A message consists of any information or intelligence that can be recorded on tangible objects including, but not limited to, paper in sheet or card form, recording disks, and magnetic tapes...


 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
If you don't trust my links, just google "postal monopoly" and pick your own sites to read about it.

You did notice that all the site on the first page of Googledom were Cato sites or other right wing sites. Except for the link to the USPS which explained that the postal monopoly is not what you think it is.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
You mean like the one I just posted about a half-hour ago, where I quoted the actual regulation granting the post office its monopoly?

quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/608.htm

5.0 Private Express Statutes
5.1 Private Express Statutes
5.1.1 Legal Foundation
By the laws known as the Private Express Statutes, Congress has generally conferred on the USPS the exclusive right to carry letters for others over post routes. USPS regulations under the Private Express Statutes are in the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 310 and 320, as amended by final rules published in the Federal Register...

5.1.2 Definition of a Letter for Private Express
For the Private Express Statutes, a letter is a message directed to a specific person or address and recorded in or on a tangible object. A message consists of any information or intelligence that can be recorded on tangible objects including, but not limited to, paper in sheet or card form, recording disks, and magnetic tapes...


I wish I found that one.

Here's another company that was too big to fail and subsidized by the tax payer, artificially low ticket prices...guess the govt made it cheaper for billions of dollars.

AMTRAK
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6146
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.
That's not technically correct. The monopoly is over "non-urgent" mail. FedEx could, if it wanted, deliver "urgent" letters in any form factor it desires, but it makes economic sense for them to standardize on a form factor.
MattP is correct. As I noted earlier, the USPS monopoly is not on letters, its on non-urgent letters and based on enforcement, an urgent letter is anything you are willing to pay to have delivered in 2 days or less. USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
When I was in the Navy I oredered a replacement doorknob for my shop, it cost $120 in 1999
That proves it!!!!!!

(That totally reminded me of Fry in Futuram during the Bigfoot presentation at the national park, saying exactly those words:))
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

No, it's an example.

If you're just calling it a 'prediction,' then your reading comprehension is so poor as to unintentionally shift the goalposts in response to your own failed challenges.

I'll say it again.


Government.


Health.


Care.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Dude, he's not interested. Why are you still interested? He shifted his focus away from that as soon as he realized he had no idea what the hell he was talking about.
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.
That's not technically correct. The monopoly is over "non-urgent" mail. FedEx could, if it wanted, deliver "urgent" letters in any form factor it desires, but it makes economic sense for them to standardize on a form factor.
MattP is correct. As I noted earlier, the USPS monopoly is not on letters, its on non-urgent letters and based on enforcement, an urgent letter is anything you are willing to pay to have delivered in 2 days or less. USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.
Based on the law, urgent is whatever the USPS says it is.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Dude, he's not interested. Why are you still interested? He shifted his focus away from that as soon as he realized he had no idea what the hell he was talking about.

Well, health care is my pet issue. If there's any debate I'm prepared to bury someone in, this is it.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Well, health care is my pet issue. If there's any debate I'm prepared to bury someone in, this is it.

Yeah! Health care is my coffin! I mean, it's your coffin!

<_<
>_>


( [Wink] )
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If we had universal health care in this country, it could be everyone's coffin.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.

???

There are plenty of private mailbox places.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Prediction, not example.

No, it's an example.

If you're just calling it a 'prediction,' then your reading comprehension is so poor as to unintentionally shift the goalposts in response to your own failed challenges.

I'll say it again.


Government.


Health.


Care.

Here are the examples of govt health care that are in existence (anything else is a prediction):

FEHP Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/postalhmo2009.pdf

BiWeekly Insurance Premium for a family $200-$500

Medicare - doubt you even want to go there.

Medicaid - ditto

Plenty of employers offer health care benefits and government employees are no exception. FEHB is insurance provided to an employee of the federal govt.....key word.....employee. If you don't work for the govt, it has nothing to do with you. You're mixing the concepts of universal health care and FEHB.


FEHB costs up to $13,000 per year per family. (the company I fall under is cheaper)

I suppose you would argue that a person living in government subsidized housing is living cheaper. The rent is still being paid, only by the government.
- If I rented my home under the Section 8 program, the rent I would recieve at the govt expense is more than the prevailing rent in the area. (I'd take less to not have sec 8 in my house)

Amtrak tickets "cost" twice as much as you pay at the counter because it is subsidized by the government.

"federal subsidy equals about 64 percent of its revenues from all other sources (e.g., tickets, food service, and state subsi­dies) and nearly equals total ticket revenue for the year.[11] In effect, for every dollar spent on a ticket, the rail passenger receives another dollar from U.S. taxpayers"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2626_v125/ai_19622623/

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2072.cfm

If the government gave you free healthcare it wouldn't actually be free. All you care about is YOU don't pay for it or it is subsidized by someone else. Government is less efficient and more expensive than private industry.

[ April 02, 2009, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The concept is the same, the only difference is application.

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.

???

There are plenty of private mailbox places.

Mailboxes etc. comes to mind off the top of my head.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Here are the examples of govt health care that are in existence (anything else is a prediction):
...

Interesting. When the going gets tough, redefine all government systems of medical care outside of the United States as "predictions."
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I don't care about systems outside the United States. They don't apply here. Cuba has a great universal health care system, ask Michael Moore. This country was founded to escape European political systems and to establish a new system of INDIVIDUAL freedom and liberty. Keep your kings, queens, czars, dictators and prime ministers. In America you are free to succeed or fail. Rich can become poor and poor can become rich. American muslims have a higher average income than American whites. How are Muslims doing in Europe?

[ April 02, 2009, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe" John Adams - 2nd Pres.

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live.. We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in it's train wretchedness and oppression." Thomas Jefferson

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
USPS also has a monopoly on the use of post boxes.

???

There are plenty of private mailbox places.

I think Rabbit meant delivery thereto.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Ah!!! Indeed.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Mal, that last diatribe tops them all as the stupidest thing you've managed to say so far.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Mal, that last diatribe tops them all as the stupidest thing you've managed to say so far.

Very insightful retort... I'll have to add diatribe to my list.

Thanks for admitting you find our founding principles to be stupid.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I don't care about systems outside the United States. They don't apply here.
Is there some reason they shouldn't apply here, or be considered as an inspiration?

Aside of course from the unmanning fear of czars and dowager princesses and whatnot. I mean, if we bring in one thing from Europe, it's BACK TO FEUDALISM, BABY!
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
There's one very good reason they shouldn't apply here....The United States Constitution.

They can be inspirational, sure. European unemployment rates and Muslim strife inspire me to realize our system is sooooo much better.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

Thanks for admitting you find our founding principles to be stupid.

Thanks for proving me right. The "founding principles" are not a bludgeon for you to wield like your personal mace.

I find you to be stupid, for the record, not the so called "founding principles" which you so blithely toss about.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Orincoro,
quote:
"founding principles" which you so blithely toss about.
Thanks for the new word- blithe. I hadn't ever used that in my vocabulary, but after I looked it up, I noticed how appropriately it can be used in many situations of my life. I will put it to good use right away!

Blithe- Happy and cheerful; gay; joyous!

I know when it comes to our founding principles, I too would toss them blithely as did Malanthrop, since they are cause for much of my joy and happiness while living in this great nation. I would very happily and cheerfully, joyfully, and gaily discuss quotes from our founding fathers.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

Thanks for admitting you find our founding principles to be stupid.

Thanks for proving me right. The "founding principles" are not a bludgeon for you to wield like your personal mace.

I find you to be stupid, for the record, not the so called "founding principles" which you so blithely toss about.

I find it particularly telling that you felt bludgeoned by them since I let them stand alone. I made no comment when I posted them. I made no attempt to interpret or explain them. I'm sorry you found the words of our founders disturbing.

[ April 03, 2009, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Keep your kings, queens, czars, dictators and prime ministers.
Can we have their insurance companies?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I don't care about systems outside the United States. They don't apply here.

The problem is that they do, and you are contorting wildly to try to say that they do not.

You're trying to avoid the issue by saying that because we don't have them now, that doesn't apply here. That's like if we lived in a country without running water, and when I tried to tell you that running water is definitely something that is better than not having running water, you would say that it doesn't apply because it's not a system 'here,' and is therefore a 'prediction.'

It is somewhere between a diatribe and an attempt at perpetuating ignorance.

The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills; the United States has more lost productivity and a lower average working age range than any of the other 'modernized' high-income nations such as the G8.

Half of the uninsured people in America owe money to hospitals and a third are being pursued by collection agencies. Children without health insurance are less likely to receive medical attention considered reasonable and appropriate for serious injuries, for recurrent ear infections, or for asthma. Lung-cancer patients without insurance are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation treatment. Heart-attack victims without health insurance are less likely to receive angioplasty. People with pneumonia who don’t have health insurance are less likely to receive X-rays or consultations.

The death rate in any given year for someone without health insurance is twenty-five per cent higher than for someone with insurance. Part of this is correlative to the higher risks and lifestyles of poorer demographics and part of this is certifiably due to the consequence of moral hazard models in leaving chronic and/or life threatening conditions untreated.

Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The extra spending does not provide us with anything approaching the effectiveness of non-actuarial models.

We have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries.

We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries.

We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries.

We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries.

American life expectancy is lower than the Western average.

Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average.

Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations, which means that we have higher infant mortality rates than some developing countries.

Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita.

The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration. In contrast, a country like Canada spends only about three hundred dollars per capita.

And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave over fifty million people without any insurance.

These systems do not exist in a vacuum outside the American Experience. The systems which work better, work better in countries and collectives which act as analogues to our own modernized infrastructure. We, in fact, have bits of health care right in front of your own face that you can't help but attempt to ignore, such as the VA. We have stuff like this, and medicare, right in the middle of our 'privatized' system because the privatized system cannot float on its own.

The most important doctor in society, the most important doctor you will ever have, is the family doctor. The GP who knows your weight, your blood pressure, complains when you smoke, all of that. As has been noted, they make a decent salary but nothing special. They're in line with what European doctors make.

Until you factor in malpractice insurance, which has been increasing its rates about 20% a year for the past decade or more, while doctor salaries have not kept in line. On account of this, the take-home pay of these doctors most critically associated with health and well-being is going down. (http://www.gnyha.org/3283/File.aspx).

A perfect example of how disastrous this trend is is to look at New York City hospitals' malpractice insurance, which has gone up 147% in five years, to the point where they are shutting down obstetrics divisions.

The end result of all this is that doctors are being chased into lucrative sub-fields in order to maintain their lifestyle. They have bills to pay, but under our current system, doctors are not paid to make people well, they are paid to perform procedures. Even worse, they are only really paid for the procedures they didn't have to perform on people who cannot pay. Many doctors, to maximize their income, are learning to perform the most expensive procedures possible, and they are competing to get into fields where they don't have to do work that they won't get paid for.

If they paid doctors to make people well, you'd have a lot more GP's, who are the ones on the front lines actually doing this. Instead, the 'winners' in the current system are carving out transplant hearts and vacuuming out fat and stapling stomachs and crowding quickly into any and all available fields where you don't have to do shit for anyone who can't pay, and thus, are not forced to accept the poor people of society as a financial liability. Since medical professionals are all crowding these optional procedure fields as fast as possible, prices for these services are going down. It's not a demonstration of how uninfluenced competition is working to our benefit in some fields as much as it it is another hilarious symptom of a collapsing medical system.

Cosmetic surgeons and the like are the 'winners' of our current system. They do completely optional and expensive procedures, only for people who pay out of pocket, they are not forced to work through thieving bureaucratic intermediaries, they are not forced by financially 'unfortunate' policies to care for those who cannot pay, and despite being under the catchall term of a medical profession, they're a little different -- they are actually all but irrelevant to our general health. They cater only to those who have the excess wealth to spend on optional procedures.

The end result is that the government has already been forced to bribe doctors with taxpayer money to remain as essentially skeleton crews in necessary medical fields which HAVE to be staffed (city hospitals, etc) but nearly NO competent doctor would stay in business in if they were forced to rely upon the profit model. Just about every single top doc in places like North Dakota or Arkansas is essentially bribed by the government with huge amounts of supplemental income to not leave. It's another example of how we're trying inefficiently to sneak in socialized solutions to float the broken moral hazard model and still somehow pretend, for the benefit of some schmucks, that it's seaworthy of its own accord.

You made a side jab about Michael Moore and Cuba. It was misinformed, of course, because you're Malanthrop, but it brings up an interesting issue.

While Cuba doesn't have a system as effectual as ours, it has one that is quite cheaper and manages to almost rate as high as our own despite being a bare-bones system in an impoverished dictatorship. In fact, the further our own system collapses, the more a chance it has of surpassing the effectiveness of our own. Whoops, not a terribly great example to bring up; in fact, I'd say it's a little embarrassing!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beleaguered:
Orincoro,
quote:
"founding principles" which you so blithely toss about.
Thanks for the new word- blithe. I hadn't ever used that in my vocabulary, but after I looked it up, I noticed how appropriately it can be used in many situations of my life. I will put it to good use right away!

(From Oxford English)

quote:
blithe |blīð; blīθ|
adjective
showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper : a blithe disregard for the rules of the road.
• happy or joyous : a blithe seaside comedy.

AS you can see, the most common usage is pejorative, with happy or joyous being a less common meaning. Clearly I intended the former.

Please do your research before making a joke out of yourself.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I made no attempt to interpret or explain them. I'm sorry you found the words of our founders disturbing.

Some of their words I do find disturbing, because some of them had some very strange ideas. Others of them had good ideas. They were not Gods, and policy is not writ in their private correspondence, nor in their public remarks, no matter how much Republican ditto-head idiots would love it to be so, so that they could start combing these documents for justifications for any manner of things, ideologies, philosophies- I don't know when the subtext of the constitution became synonymous with its content, but I have found the BS rationalization of you and your ilk to be *the* most disturbing part of it.

And don't for a second try and imply that *I feel* bludgeoned by any of your quotes. I said you were using them as a bludgeon, and you are. You don't get away with complimenting yourself to me- I don't find your tactics effective, I find them offensive. I feel not in the least insecure about *anything* you've said in this entire thread. Don't for a moment in your weasely little way, imply that I have said otherwise.


I know you listen to Limbaugh, or someone who repeats all his garbage- you don't pull these idiotic jargon terms out of nowhere. Congratulations, you're throwing your lot in with a man who feels himself above basic research.

I really have nothing more to say. You began this entire thread with the suggestion that we start to pick out groups of people in our society to disenfranchise. Now you run back to "founding principles," which are conveniently located in the zázemi (meaning background) outside the constitution itself. I suppose you think a basic founding principle of our country is the limitation of voting rights to those who are born into the ruling class and culture?

You disgust me. Really, you do. I think you and people like you are the worst, most rotten part of our society- and I'd defend to the death your right to vote any way you choose. I know you wouldn't, because you believe in nothing but yourself. I hope you choke (just a little bit).
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Thanks for the lengthy essay on how horrible America is. Move to Cuba if you like.

You're partially correct, illness and injury are the leading causes of bankrupcy. You confuse causation with symptom. A person gets hurt and cannot work all sorts of debts pile up. I'd pay my rent before my medical bills as well. Perhaps we should fix the other broken government programs, social security and medicare. I just moved my disabled neighbor who lost his home and filed for bankruptcy. He is in fact covered already by medicare and medicaid. The medical coverage is provided but he's been fighting for four years to get his social security benefits. The nearly automatic rejection and lengthy appeals process to get what he paid into all his life.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979RK085&show_article=1&catnum=0

How many uninsured in this country have cable television, internet access, smoke cigarettes, buy beer, eat out, cell phones, or have heafty car payments. The beautiful thing about this country is you have a choice where you spend your money. YOU don't get to decide how someone else spends their money. If a wealthy person wants a nose job they are not wasting money that someone else could use for healthcare. It's that persons money to spend, not yours or the governments. I have children I care about and I'm a responsible citizen. If I took a pay cut, I would cancel my cell phones and have the tv and internet disconnected, this alone would pay for my insurance.

What is "cheaper" for you is not cheaper in reality. Just because the government pays for it does not make it cheaper. You want one person to pay for another.

Tort reform is definitely needed and would drive down costs. Doctors are fleeing due to malpractice insurance. The lawyers are making a killing but I doubt the government will do much about that, most politicians are lawyers and the lawyer lobbies are very powerful (especially among Democrats).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

The average American will work until April 13th to cover their taxes for the year. Only one more week to go. That's a significant portion of income that could go towards insurance.

Social Security, another great govt program. I could save or invest the same amount of money and have a much better retirement and assets I could leave for my children. I wouldn't end up in the same boat as my bankrupt neighbor, fighting to get his money. Bernad Madoff's ponzi scheme doesn't even come close the greatest pyramid scheme of all, Social Security.

Tout the benefits of socialized medicine all day long. Demonize our system if you like. We are the worlds medical innovators because we have a market system. You can postulate all you want about the benefits of this or that in your perfect socialized world. America is not about the group, rather the individual. We are not a socialist country. No system is perfect but history has proven our system is the best the world has ever known.

You may very well get your Marxist utopia. I hope not.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
quote:
By Orincoro:
Please do your research before making a joke out of yourself.

Advanced Dictionary, Scott, Foresman Edition, Page 119, second collumn:
quote:
blithe (blITH, blIth), adj. 1 Happy and cheerful; gay; joyous. 2 heedless. [Old English blithe]
It seems as though two dictionaries disagree on this definition. I suppose the question now is which dictionary is more correct. Do you have the answer to this one, or should I start a new post so we can have another active meaningless debate? I'm willing to get a second or third opinion, but at the moment this is the dictionary at my disposal.

I appreciate your willingness to correct my inability to do research, though as you can see you jumped the gun with your agressive insult. Either people will think I'm a joke for using a particular definition of a word (perhaps not number one in all dictionaries), or they will appreciate how my comments directed them to learn something new about a word they already had been using.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
There's one very good reason they shouldn't apply here....The United States Constitution.
...

I don't suppose you could be more specific about what would be unconstitutional about *all* foreign government systems of health care?
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
quote:
by Orincoro:
You disgust me. Really, you do. I think you and people like you are the worst, most rotten part of our society- and I'd defend to the death your right to vote any way you choose. I know you wouldn't, because you believe in nothing but yourself. I hope you choke (just a little bit).

I know this isn't my discussion, but for an educated person, you sure do spit out a lot of uneducated hostility. I don't know why Malanthrop even bothers trying to discuss legitimate arguments with your hate and hostility.

I've grown to understand at a certain point of anger, no amount of reason will be understood. I think you've gotten to the point where you are beyond reason. I know you'll suggest it's the other way around, but I'm looking at both sides of this discussion, and he's kept a cool head and has fed you with the best information and facts he can find to prove his point. You only call him stupid, and say he doesn't know what he's talking about. I know you're intelligent, probably more intelligent than I am, yet you're possibly beyond reason here.

Have you noticed how few of the other liberals have stuck this fight out with you?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
[QB] Thanks for the lengthy essay on how horrible America is. Move to Cuba if you like.

It's not an essay on how horrible America is. If that's all you can parse it down to, then you are either unable or uninterested in being able to challenge my viewpoint on its own merits.

quote:
You confuse causation with symptom.
quote:
How many uninsured in this country have cable television, internet access, smoke cigarettes, buy beer, eat out, cell phones, or have heafty car payments. The beautiful thing about this country is you have a choice where you spend your money. YOU don't get to decide how someone else spends their money.
You're right, I forgot that this is a representative democracy with taxation funding a communal public pool of money that can be spent for the benefit of other people. Silly oversight of mine, I'm sure.


quote:
What is "cheaper" for you is not cheaper in reality.
You have no idea what it means when we point out that our healthcare system costs two and a half times the industrialized world median, do you?

Yes, it is cheaper in reality. It's cheaper because the actuarial system we use is broken and monstrously wasteful. Each individual american pays thousands more wasted in bureaucratic overhead and paperwork per year than counterparts in other similar countries (i.e., all of them) with social systems.

quote:
Bernad Madoff's ponzi scheme doesn't even come close the greatest pyramid scheme of all, Social Security.
The way you are trying to segue this discussion to other stuff unrelated to the points I'm hammering you on, I'm becoming convinced that you are desperate to move away from your healthcare gaffe.

quote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Way to repeat yourself unnecessarily. Might I note that Ben Franklin never said this?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
And, getting its own post

quote:
No system is perfect but history has proven our system is the best the world has ever known.

You may very well get your Marxist utopia. I hope not.

The most important doctor in society, the most important doctor you will ever have, is the family doctor. The GP who knows your weight, your blood pressure, complains when you smoke, all of that. As has been noted, they make a decent salary but nothing special. They're in line with what European doctors make.

Until you factor in malpractice insurance, which has been increasing its rates about 20% a year for the past decade or more, while doctor salaries have not kept in line. On account of this, the take-home pay of these doctors most critically associated with health and well-being is going down. (http://www.gnyha.org/3283/File.aspx).

A perfect example of how disastrous this trend is is to look at New York City hospitals' malpractice insurance, which has gone up 147% in five years, to the point where they are shutting down obstetrics divisions.

The end result of all this is that doctors are being chased into lucrative sub-fields in order to maintain their lifestyle. They have bills to pay, but under our current system, doctors are not paid to make people well, they are paid to perform procedures. Even worse, they are only really paid for the procedures they didn't have to perform on people who cannot pay. Many doctors, to maximize their income, are learning to perform the most expensive procedures possible, and they are competing to get into fields where they don't have to do work that they won't get paid for.

If they paid doctors to make people well, you'd have a lot more GP's, who are the ones on the front lines actually doing this. Instead, the 'winners' in the current system are carving out transplant hearts and vacuuming out fat and stapling stomachs and crowding quickly into any and all available fields where you don't have to do shit for anyone who can't pay, and thus, are not forced to accept the poor people of society as a financial liability. Since medical professionals are all crowding these optional procedure fields as fast as possible, prices for these services are going down. It's not a demonstration of how uninfluenced competition is working to our benefit in some fields as much as it it is another hilarious symptom of a collapsing medical system.

Cosmetic surgeons and the like are the 'winners' of our current system. They do completely optional and expensive procedures, only for people who pay out of pocket, they are not forced to work through thieving bureaucratic intermediaries, they are not forced by financially 'unfortunate' policies to care for those who cannot pay, and despite being under the catchall term of a medical profession, they're a little different -- they are actually all but irrelevant to our general health. They cater only to those who have the excess wealth to spend on optional procedures.

The end result is that the government has already been forced to bribe doctors with taxpayer money to remain as essentially skeleton crews in necessary medical fields which HAVE to be staffed (city hospitals, etc) but nearly NO competent doctor would stay in business in if they were forced to rely upon the profit model. Just about every single top doc in places like North Dakota or Arkansas is essentially bribed by the government with huge amounts of supplemental income to not leave. It's another example of how we're trying inefficiently to sneak in socialized solutions to float the broken moral hazard model and still somehow pretend, for the benefit of people like you, that it's seaworthy of its own accord.

It's not.

It's not even 'innovative' in its own right for virtue of being a private model.

There's also another issue and it becomes evident when you ask seniors what form of healthcare they want. The big old socialized medical care program called Medicare, known alternately as being 'the most popular program in America' and 'the politically untouchable juggernaut.' Socialism, right here in the heart of the dear old U.S. because private medical care wouldn't touch the issue of care for the elderly.

Why? The elderly have the same sort of issue which leaves orphan diseasers to sit in a corner and die. There is no way to make taking care of old people profitable. Good thing that private insurers get to bypass the issue of maintenance of the elderly.

Thanks, Medicare, for being the big bad socialized medical program that makes 'private' health coverage remotely feasible! Please, feel free to continue defining it as a ponzi scheme.

All you can do is toss off a glib comment about my desire for a 'marxist utopia.' That I dare to disagree with the private system causes you to default to a childish strategy wherein you immediately equate my suggestions and my interpretations as a line-by-line support of comically irrelevant communist ideals. It's like a refuge for you. Sure, malanthrop. Way to take the conversation seriously.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beleaguered:
I know this isn't my discussion

I don't see why not. You're one of the main contributors under your malanthrop handle. Heck, you started the thread.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
I suppose the question now is which dictionary is more correct.
No. The question is what I meant. Considering that I meant the former definition in my dictionary and the latter in yours- I would say that you deliberately misinterpreted my use of the word in order to mock me- my use of the word was very clear in context, and you misread. It made you look stupid. Move on.

quote:
I appreciate your willingness to correct my inability to do research, though as you can see you jumped the gun with your agressive insult. Either people will think I'm a joke for using a particular definition of a word (perhaps not number one in all dictionaries), or they will appreciate how my comments directed them to learn something new about a word they already had been using.
No, people will think you're either lamely passive aggressive or lazy for failing to actually notice that the definition I was clearly using was included in the dictionary you consulted. If this had confused you, you would have checked another source to confirm- but instead you went with one definition when you were presented with two, and you chose the one that obviously didn't work. Now you're lamely attempting to make a lesson out of it. Lots of words have multiple definitions, and most people are able to figure out what words mean in context. Most people are certainly not willing to make a joke at their own expense about alternate definitions. Sorry- Fail.

PS. Get a better dictionary- mine is more respected than yours. (If you have a dictionary with a lot of single word synonym definitions, then you have an insufficient dictionary).
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
MrSquicky,

As I've said I don't know how many times before, I'm flattered you compare me with Malanthrop. He is more intelligent than I am, and his knowledge of politics in particular is much more researched than mine. I'm just another conservative in the room, but then again, I suppose all of us conservatives are the same- right? He and I have a similar voice on these topics, therefore we must be the same.

I'm certain anyone who is able to do any amount of research could discover we are very much different people. There is nothing to suggest we are the same person, other than our similar voice in this room. All the liberals in the room have a similar voice, does that mean they are the same person?

I probably should've just ignored your comment MrSquicky, since arguing wouldn't change anyone's formed opinion. If anyone is interested in my challenge to research for a few minutes, you'd discover we aren't the same. I doubt anyone who holds such an opinion is interested in the research that might change it. Think as you'd like, again- it's I see it as a compliment, though I suggest your accusation isn't fair to Malanthrop.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Orincoro,

I have no doubt you would defend my right to vote. The truth is, I actually did defend yours. For twelve years of active duty and many months in Iraq. If you ever had to call your wife in the middle of a work day to tell her, "bring my cloths and the kids. I can't tell you when I'll be back" you might have some understanding.

Sitting in the desert, listening to liberal Americans and American Politicians say we had lost the war, the war is over or a waste of human life; American troops are kicking in the doors of innocent people in the middle of the night or committing acts of torture. This tainted my perception of liberals, I'll admit. I see a lot of lip service for political gain. A political party that succeeds when America fails. Playing on the jealousy and divisions among our people for votes.

We heard these things and no amount of lip service about "we support the troops not the war" could make up for it.

People who complain about this country have absolutely no idea how good it really is. I've been in almost every third world shit hole there is and plenty of European nations as well. I'm quite sure the majority of the world would trade places with the poorest among us and probably not remain poor for long.

We are a spoiled and envious people. We look at our neighbor and hold them in contempt for having more. What's more, we look at other nations and want what they have on us. There's give and take and a cost for what they have. Even most Americans who want European style social programs would probably stay here if given a choice.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Orincoro,

Your tone of mockery is fun. Keep it up, it makes me laugh.

Most, if not all words have multiple definitions, they're fun like that. You chose one, I chose another. My definition was able to play with yours, and that was my intention.

Congratulations for owning a more respectible dictionary. You must be a more respectible person because of your superior dictionary.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
malanthrop,

quote:
There's one very good reason they shouldn't apply here....The United States Constitution.
Ha! This oughta be good. Please, explain why the Constitution prohibits European-style health-care systems.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beleaguered:
Orincoro,

Your tone of mockery is fun. Keep it up, it makes me laugh.

I'm sure that it does.

You don't get to choose the definitions of the words I use. That's called poor reading comprehension- it's akin to kids on a playground "mishearing" the new kid's name, so that "John Hart," becomes "John Fart," or one of many variations. It's infantile. Not funny, not witty, not smart.

Again- Fail.


And of course by fun, I assume you mean:

quote:
• playful behavior or good humor : she's full of fun.
quote:
Respectible
This word is not in my dictionary... strange!
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beleaguered:
Orincoro,

Your tone of mockery is fun. Keep it up, it makes me laugh.

Most, if not all words have multiple definitions, they're fun like that. You chose one, I chose another. My definition was able to play with yours, and that was my intention.

Congratulations for owning a more respectible dictionary. You must be a more respectible person because of your superior dictionary.

The problem with learning words from a dictionary rather than in the context of written or spoken word, is that there are subtle connotations of words which are rarely fully captured by the dictionary.

Blithe is precisely such a word. I have never seen it used in written or spoken language as other than a pejorative. It may mean "carefree and joyful" but always in a context in which being carefree and joyful is at least somewhat misplaced.

Please feel free to continue blithely using "blithe" and any other word you like to mean whatever you choose.

Just don't be surprised if you are misunderstood and misunderstand others.

[ April 03, 2009, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beleaguered:
... I'm flattered you compare me with Malanthrop. He is more intelligent than I am, and his knowledge of politics in particular is much more researched than mine.

That definitely convinces me.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Orincoro,

I have no doubt you would defend my right to vote. The truth is, I actually did defend yours. For twelve years of active duty and many months in Iraq.

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.


Epic Fail.


Edit: Stop posting as two people please.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Orincoro,
You must not be very fun at a dinner party. It was a play on words. No sense of humor at all . . . Instead of acknowledging my sarcastic play on words for what it is and was intended to be, you decided to call me dumb, a joke, and equal to a child in a playground. You have no imagination and therefore must not be a very fun person. The mockery is amusing though, now I'm a little kid on a playground talking about John Dart. Oh, there I go again, "mishearing" what you said, sorry.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
malanthrop: I have a lot of respect for people who serve our country faithfully, especially those willing to face death. But here is what gets me pretty frustrated,

quote:
We heard these things and no amount of lip service about "we support the troops not the war" could make up for it.
I was horrified to come back as a missionary from 2001-2003 and find out we had troops in Iraq (I had almost total media blackout while I was working as a missionary). I immediately assumed that it was like Desert Storm; the threat was obvious, the necessity of force was established, and all that remained was to do the work. When people told me that we were still looking for the WMDs that were "definitely there" I believed it. When we said we were going to help the Iraqis create a new democracy, I was unsure how that would work out, I genuinely hoped it would. When I found out we had a special facility at gitmo so that we could find a way to deal with terrorists who don't wear a uniform I thought it might be a good idea. When the photos of Abu Gharib showed up I thought, "Whoever is in charge of that should be cashiered, it's terrible that a few soldiers will reflect so badly on our fantastic armed forces."

But then I found out the WMDs just were not there. I found out that the intelligence community hadn't ever had very good evidence of said WMDs. I didn't fault Bush for that, but I did hope he would at least admit that mistakes had been made. Instead, I found out the administration was playing up "nation building" and pretending they never said the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." But that instead the war had always been about removing an evil dictator. I recognized that since we had started the thing we damn well better find a way to leave things as best we can. I was miffed the administration did not own up to the mistake, but I moved on. Then I found out that private contractors were acting lawlessly in Iraq, disrespecting our troops, murdering the Iraqi people, and were somehow immune to both Iraqi and American law. Then I found out that since gitmo could not legally do certain things to get information that "might" be in the heads of some of those terrorists that "extraordinary rendition" was created so that we could ship them to other countries that would do those terrible things. I found out that we were releasing prisoners from gitmo because they were innocent, years after they had been arrested and tortured. I looked to the administration to own up to their mistakes instead of taking credit for victory prematurely "Mission Accomplished." I came to believe that I wanted the war in Iraq to work out desperately, I even believed the surge might work based on hearing some of our most brilliant minds explain it. But I also came to believe that if the war in Iraq was a dead end like the Vietnam War that the Bush administration would act just like the LBJ administration and in their desperation to win take us all to hell with them.

I'm very glad there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 2001, but what has the cost been? We were not right in everything we did since 9/11, we should own up to that. I was thrilled that Pres. Obama has announced that we are closing gitmo, whatever good such a facility could have gained us, it completely failed in its' execution because we couldn't even treat our prisoners within the bounds of the Geneva Convention to say nothing of the constitution.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Iraq now, it might actually turn out alright. Those who said we had already lost may be wrong. But those who said they support our troops but not the war are still right in a sense. We were not right to go to Iraq in the first place. But most importantly of all,

How can anyone do anything but pay lip service to the idea that we ought to bring our troops home? Can we take up arms and do something about it? Should we all be accused of being "unpatriotic" by filling up the jails after refusing to pay taxes so that the war cannot be waged? What does a patriotic person who hates a war and wants to get out so as to save the lives of our troops do besides pay lip service and seek to persuade others that they are right in their opposition? What would you do?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beleaguered:
Orincoro,
You must not be very fun at a dinner party. It was a play on words.

No it wasn't. You don't know what a play on words is- they generally require something we call "wit." Add that to your list of things to look up sometime.

This was more of a "faceplant over words," which, by the way, *is* a play on words. Did you find it witty and smart when Pee-Wee Herman said "I know you are but what am I?" Did you repeat that to your friends until they begged you to either stop, or find new people to eat lunch with?

quote:
The mockery is amusing though, now I'm a little kid on a playground talking about John Dart. Oh, there I go again, "mishearing" what you said, sorry.
Are you dyslexic? I'm asking out of curiosity, because under both your handles, you've been showing some real problems in reading comprehension. You don't seem to understand what a wordplay is, you make constant spelling mistakes, you fail to parse the simplest sentences. What's up? More than anything, this last bit gives me kind of a perfunctory: "huh?" Does he actually understand what I was talking about?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
The words coming from the citizens who took a stand against the war were fine. They have a right to speak what they believe.

The politicians are different, they represent the America. These phrases impact the enemy, embolden them. All the talk of pulling out, the war is over, etc lost our troops support in the field. Our allies became scared that we would actually pull out and leave them to face the kind of genocide they had after the first persian gulf war. The police and military there take a huge risk. I knew an Assyrian who worked as a contractor with us. He supported his entire village with the money he made. He expressed his concern about us pulling out. He knew he and quite possibly his entire family would be killed if we just called it quits.

During the first Gulf war we encouraged the people to rise up and fight. The one's that did expected America to free them, we didn't and many were tortured and murdered by Saddam after we pulled out. We lost 58,000 troops in Vietnam but our pullout contributed to the deaths of possibly a million people by the Khmer Rouge. Our lack of political will has lead to the deaths of many people in the world. No wonder they don't trust us anymore.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
The guy supports his entire village with the money he makes as a contractor with the US, and he shows concern about the idea of the US leaving? That's news?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beleaguered:
MrSquicky,

As I've said I don't know how many times before, I'm flattered you compare me with Malanthrop. He is more intelligent than I am, and his knowledge of politics in particular is much more researched than mine. I'm just another conservative in the room, but then again, I suppose all of us conservatives are the same- right? He and I have a similar voice on these topics, therefore we must be the same.

I'm certain anyone who is able to do any amount of research could discover we are very much different people. There is nothing to suggest we are the same person, other than our similar voice in this room. All the liberals in the room have a similar voice, does that mean they are the same person?

I probably should've just ignored your comment MrSquicky, since arguing wouldn't change anyone's formed opinion. If anyone is interested in my challenge to research for a few minutes, you'd discover we aren't the same. I doubt anyone who holds such an opinion is interested in the research that might change it. Think as you'd like, again- it's I see it as a compliment, though I suggest your accusation isn't fair to Malanthrop.

One of the things about the internet that makes me smile is how clever non-clever people often think they are.

You're not fooling...well, I can't say anyone, but most people. Even if we haven't had other people doing the same thing with a very similar pattern and even responses that you are, your cunning ruse is actually pretty transparent.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
So, malanthrop, no examples of how the US Constitution prohibits adapting European style health care systems to our own?

Shocking, I say, shocking that you would ignore a direct question whose answer must prove completely contrary to your rants.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Here's some WMD's they found. Didn't really make a big splash on the news though.

Chemical:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

Nuclear:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

We told him for weeks we were coming. What else he may have had were hid, buried or moved to another country. He was proud of his WMD's for years. He bragged about them and used them on his own people. Even if he got rid of them he wanted the world to think he had them, a good deterrent.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Now, that's a good deflection, malanthrop.

Maybe if you divert the discussion to WMDs in Iraq people will be diverted from all the questions you have failed to answer about health care.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Some old, forgotten chemical munitions that were so badly corroded they were unusable and a bunch of yellow cake there's no evidence was being used in the past two decades for anything (we knew he had bought some before that -- Osirak, anyone? -- and the stuff doesn't just go away).

Yeah, that's exactly what was meant when it was said, over and over again that Iraq was actively developing WMDs, creating an eminent danger.
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Blackblade,

I'd like to give you my opinion on this. I understand why you were frustrated, because I went through a lot of the same emotions. I returned from my mission in 2000, and then joined the Army Reserves in 2001, just before the terrorist attack on 9/11. Right while I was watching the news, I knew it was a matter of time before I would be deployed to Iraq to fight the good fight. I served in Iraq in 05-06, and did the best job I could with the jobs given.

Your frustration is, correct me if I'm wrong, why support something when you don't feel it's doing what you think it aught to be doing? Namely the government efforts in Iraq . . .

I decided to do my duty for my country, to support my leaders and fulfill their lawful orders. As for the time leading up to and after my time of service in Iraq, that time was spent learning what I could about politics so I could form my own opinions and even voice my opinions where I thought they needed to be heard.

We have to be a law abiding community, even when we disagree with the laws. We have the freedom of speech, and many other freedoms. While we are law-abiding citizens, we can voice our opinions on the laws in which we might disagree. The way I see it, all soldiers are doing their job and the desire of higher up authorities and shouldn't be blamed for injustices or malpractices that aren't self-inflicted (Abu Ghraib). The vast majority of the soldiers are fighting the good fight, that is they are fighting what they believe in, or are contractually obligated to do. In short, support the troops, and if you disagree with any laws or government policies, then we have our own voice and it is our right to use it.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
Because you have yet to answer it yet:

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
There's one very good reason they shouldn't apply here....The United States Constitution.

What clause in particular?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
malanthrop: That is why I highly sympathize with executing a war as best we can even when we were wrong to get in in the first place.

But if an administration is going to commit us to war they owe the people a huge debt. They owe us their best efforts in both preparing and prosecuting the war. Is our best efforts "no exit strategy?" or "Virtually no long term strategy should the war become protracted?"

The administration owes us at least translucence if not transparency, instead we got obtuseness. I don't expect our leaders to look weak and incapable, but do you think Obama looks weak for admitting that torture, abuse, and indifference to basic human rights was a problem at gitmo and we need to come up with another solution? Would George W. Bush had looked weak and ineffective if he had said, "My best intelligence advised me of the presence of WMDs and I made the call, but it looks like we were all mistaken in our belief, for that I take full responsibility. Having said that it would be unethical and wrong for us to simply leave Iraq after opening up such a big wound, it falls to us to help them recreate a government better than the one that so oppressed them in the past."?

Instead we had to vote them all out of office because they wouldn't talk to us like we could understand them. President Obama wants to commit more troops to Afghanistan, I support this decision, but I'd also like a more clear cut description of what victory looks like.

As for us pulling out of Vietnam and thus leaving good Vietnamese people to the wolves, we weren't winning. Our military again had no picture of victory, we had another administration willing to take us all to hell with them if it meant the possibility of victory. The administration also made the mistake of believing the American people could not handle the truth, so they told us very little. You know the Chinese invaded Vietnam after we left in 1979. You know what happened to them? Over 50,000 casualties in a month, perhaps 20,000 killed, then retreat. I am convinced the Vietnam War could have turned out in our favor, but we squandered that opportunity when we backed a terrible man (Diem) who was as bad as any North Vietnamese boogy man. We spent too much time simply dumping more ordinance than all the ordinance used in Europe during WWII on North Vietnam. Our strategic hamlet program was an idea misapplied to the Vietnamese people, we failed to notice that Thai and Australian troops seemed to be killing just as many people without nearly as many casualties. By the time we tried winning the Vietnamese's "hearts and minds" we were too late, they wanted us to leave, and to reap their own whirlwind. Their country definitely had troubles after we left, but its looking better and better these days and they don't hold a grudge towards us.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Epictetus:
Sorry to revert to an early point in the conversation, but:

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

I want another house. I could sign up as a section 8 landlord and get a guaranteed $1300 per month right now or I could put it up on the public rental market and maybe get $900. Personally, I'll take the $900 over some piece of crap who doesn't care about where he/she lives since mommy gov is paying for it.

I live in Section 8 housing. It is the best apartment that I could afford on my wages and I pay every expense out of my own pocket.

I find your characterization of section 8 housing residents misinformed and offensive. Do you actually read what you write or do you find that you kind of drift in and out?

If you're trying to hold the moral high ground, ridding your posts of phrases like "some piece of crap" (in reference to fellow human beings) is a good place to start.
</annoyed>

Carry on everyone.

And as a landlord who has one Section 8 tenant, they aren't any more (and have actually been less) of an issue, than those paying more through the market.

-Bok
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
What clause in particular?
The 'nothing foreign!' clause, obviously.

I don't know what kind of answer you'll get to your question, or even if you'll get one at all. All I can say for sure is that you won't be getting a direct link to a portion of the Constitution or some Constitutional scholarly paper that outlines exactly why European style health care systems would be unconstitutional in the USA.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
*sigh*
It's to be expected, I suppose.

But I stand by the question as a reminder that saying, "it's in the Constitution" and leaving it at that, does not qualify as a free pass.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
beleagured:
quote:
Your frustration is, correct me if I'm wrong, why support something when you don't feel it's doing what you think it aught to be doing? Namely the government efforts in Iraq . . .
I'm more frustrated with the accusation that people who vocally support getting out of a conflict are somehow more cowardly or in possession of weaker convictions as those who actually go to war and folks who rail that to try and bring them home is unpatriotic.

I have already stated that I believe the decision to get out of war is just as important as the decision to go, I would hate either decision to be made mistakenly. I believe the lives of our soldiers and the people of the country we are fighting in weigh heavily on both decisions. But the former administration showed a lack of respect for both of those decisions. They expected us to just let them take care of it and keep sending men into the line of fire, the logic being that if we just trusted and waited long enough all those folks in Iraq would solve the problem collectively and we'd all be so thankful when they came home.

When you say, "I want to know what's going on!" they said, "It's hard to say, don't be so impatient just trust us." When you got tired of that and said, "I'm not sure you're doing the right thing" the response was, "Oh so you don't support America because you are willing to jeopardize all that our men have fought and died for? And what do you know anyway, you're not there, when you pick up a gun and come under fire then you can have an opinion."

The situation is many things, but one of the things it isn't is "right."
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
The politicians are different, they represent the America. These phrases impact the enemy, embolden them.
Politicians have absolutely no requirement to follow the government. If all the politicians follow the government, what's the point of having any of them? Politicians in a democracy represent the people they are elected by, not the government. In a situation where the executive branch is largely completely separate from the legislative branches, this should be even more obvious than it is in a parliamentary system where a good portion of the politicians are the government.

The day all your politicians fall in the same line, that's the day you have a problem.

Taking a milder form of your argument, that the opposing parties or politicians should, when it comes down to it support the government (the Prime Minister or the President), then I agree. Canada (and I presume the UK) calls the opposition party the "loyal opposition". However, historically and practically speaking, that certainly doesn't mean the opposition have to agree with the government, except in the direst of circumstances which usually amounts to terrible direct disaster and invasion. (Foreign war does not qualify as the direst of consequences).

I would say that opposition parties are basically for "the country", but even that's not the case. Canada functions reasonably well with a major party that represents only a fraction of the country.

Either way, politicians do not have to support the government in any sense that they support the fact that there is a democratic government and that somebody not-them was chosen to be "leader" of it. The rest of the time, it's their duty to represent alternative, hopefully well-reasoned, ideas.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Epictetus:
Because you have yet to answer it yet:

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
There's one very good reason they shouldn't apply here....The United States Constitution.

What clause in particular?
You and I know there is no such clause in the Constitution but even if there were, it would be essentially irrelevant. If the Constitution required America to have an expensive dysfunctional health care system, then its would be time to amend the constitution.

I get the impression that some people see the constitution as an unquestionable source of truth and goodness. Its not. It was created by men who were wise enough to know better and created a mechanism by which we could change it if needed.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
The words coming from the citizens who took a stand against the war were fine. They have a right to speak what they believe.

The politicians are different, they represent the America. These phrases impact the enemy, embolden them. All the talk of pulling out, the war is over, etc lost our troops support in the field.

Does that philosophy apply to politicians in the midst of an economic crisis? Should they stifle their dissent and support the President's plan. Afer all, the people who say the plan will fail cause people to be more frightened and discouraged which has a negative impact on the economy. A rather more direct effect, in fact, than war protesters had on our troops.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
So, malanthrop, no examples of how the US Constitution prohibits adapting European style health care systems to our own?

Shocking, I say, shocking that you would ignore a direct question whose answer must prove completely contrary to your rants.

Thomas Jefferson:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Is it specifically enumerated?

The 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- states could provide for it

The Preamble of the US Constitution shows how these rights are to be secured including "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".

Two clear distinctions should be made here:
Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach.
For example, I'll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it!
General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.
- generally, most American have healthcare already.

The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
- again, is universal healthcare integral to the general welfare of the United States?

Under current federal law a patient has a right to emergency health care regardless the ability to pay.

We have a right to EMERGENCY health care.

Of course we can't even get the supreme court to agree on gun rights (5-4) so it's truly pointless for us to argue constitutional law.

In my opinion, we have strayed far from the constitutional limits of the Federal government already.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Could you give an example of a government program you feel is (or could be) providing for the general welfare? Your "reasoning" about it is bizarre in the extreme.

Of course, given what we know of improved health outcomes in many countries with government health insurance, including among the wealthy, even your bizarre arguments are already dealt with. The evidence is clearly that a government health insurance program has the ability to improve the health of just about everyone in society. That's before we even start noticing the benefits on everyone of reduced healthcare costs (another thing the evidence makes clear can be had with single-payer insurance).
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Blackblade,
War is nasty business. I think anyone who actually wants war should be psychiatrically evaluated. I don't think those who wish for the speedy return of US troops is unpatriotic. To caveat on that, I think there are healthy ways of expressing the desire to have troops return home, and there are also unhealthy ways. I don't think it's very patriotic for non-military experts to use a public loud speaker, TV, Radio, other wide spread media, to rally a bring the soldiers home because this war is useless, done, illegal, being lost, and/or is a waste of our money, campaign to solicit response. That action isn't patriotic, it's political garbage with no legitimate military base of understanding. I know I just generalized, but there are many of these such individuals in hollywood, or even in current politics.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
In my opinion, we have strayed far from the constitutional limits of the Federal government already.
So what?

The question isn't whether our not current laws will allow us to establish a national health care system, the question is whether or not doing such a thing would be good.

If the constitution prohibits us from doing something good, we need to change the constitution. We've done that dozens of times since the constitution was formed. You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't have abolished slavery since the constitution didn't originally grant that power.

The question of whether or not we should have a national health care system is a separate issue from whether or not we will need to amend the constitution to do it.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
While I'm sympathetic to the idea of doing good things, I feel that sometimes specific good things should be left behind restrictions, because those restrictions form an important line against things that are also bad. For instance, no matter if it might help the country to give a particular benevolent president more power, I'm generally against significantly expanding the power of the executive branch.

Government health care in the ways being discussed isn't a topic I feel those qualms apply to, though.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Malanthrop,

quote:
Of course we can't even get the supreme court to agree on gun rights (5-4) so it's truly pointless for us to argue constitutional law.
Then perhaps you would be wise not to bring the Constitution into it, malanthrop, if indeed it's 'useless' to argue it.

Or did it only become useless once you were called on yet another BS statement that couldn't be substantiated?

quote:
Thomas Jefferson:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Is it specifically enumerated?

Hey, there's a great example of something that ain't the Constitution.

quote:
The 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- states could provide for it

First of all, I have little doubt you'd be as adamantly opposed to state-run universal healthcare systems as you would be federally run universal health care.

Second, by the reasoning you're using, clearly the federal government doesn't have the authority to, say, inspect the food and drugs we consume to ensure our safety?

Wait...is that part of ensuring welfare? If that is, why not healthcare?

quote:
General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.
You remind me of a childless senior citizen bit@#ing about having to pay taxes that go to support local schools. Helping the poor does benefit the entire society, so that addresses your vague complaints easily enough.

quote:
- again, is universal healthcare integral to the general welfare of the United States?
Some system that affords healthcare to everyone is, yes. Yeah, even that farcical stereotype of yours, the people with pagers and cellphones and color TVs and Internet access who don't have insurance. Yeah, they make dumb choices. I don't care, I still don't want `em dead if they get sick.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
While I'm sympathetic to the idea of doing good things, I feel that sometimes specific good things should be left behind restrictions, because those restrictions form an important line against things that are also bad. For instance, no matter if it might help the country to give a particular benevolent president more power, I'm generally against significantly expanding the power of the executive branch..

I don't disagree with any of that except perhaps your definition of good. One has to look not only at the narrow consequences of an act but also at the broader and longer range consequences. So if giving a benevolent President expanded powers to accomplish some "good" objective, also means eroding civil liberties or expanding the power of future presidents who may not be benevolent, I would not call that a good thing.

Establishing a national health care system would in fact expand the power of the federal government. I can see why people might be wary of doing that. But the question shouldn't be solely whether or not the expanded government powers are constitutional but rather whether the expanded government powers would as a whole be beneficial or detrimental.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Now, that's a good deflection, malanthrop.

Maybe if you divert the discussion to WMDs in Iraq people will be diverted from all the questions you have failed to answer about health care.


 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
By your argument the government should also provide food to everyone. It is a basic necessity, housing as well is a basic necessity. We should tax everyone to ensure we all have the same diet and the same size home. These are more basic and fundamental than health care.

What you should ask yourselves is does the constitution provide for such an action. The constitution was established to limit government, hence: specific enumeration. Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law. The system has been flipped. Government action should be weighed as contsitutional prior to implementation not proved unconstitutional after the fact.

I'm sure I'm talking to a crowd that believes in the living breathing document concept anyway.

States are suppose to have more authority than the Federal government. That's why gay marriage is a states issue and some states have universal health care. If you want universal coverage, move to Oregon.

Here's a good one, denied "universal" treatment by the state and offered assisted suicide instead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392962,00.html
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Now, that's a good deflection, malanthrop.

Maybe if you divert the discussion to WMDs in Iraq people will be diverted from all the questions you have failed to answer about health care.


I'm not deflecting. I'm sure you think everything is about you but I'm responding to other people. Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
quote:
Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law.
I'm not sure I can remember a time when they did.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Malanthrop,

quote:
By your argument the government should also provide food to everyone. It is a basic necessity, housing as well is a basic necessity. We should tax everyone to ensure we all have the same diet and the same size home. These are more basic and fundamental than health care.
Even if my argument could extend to these straw men you're building (and it can't)...well, in fact the government should provide food to those without. Even the people who don't want to work (that favorite stereotype of conservative Republicans) should get government cheese. Housing (of a sort) as well: no one should live on the street.

quote:

What you should ask yourselves is does the constitution provide for such an action. The constitution was established to limit government, hence: specific enumeration. Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law. The system has been flipped. Government action should be weighed as contsitutional prior to implementation not proved unconstitutional after the fact.

The Constitution was not only created for that.

quote:
I'm sure I'm talking to a crowd that believes in the living breathing document concept anyway.
The Founders did, too, you know. That's why they built change into it.

quote:
Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up.
I'm whistling this. That's as unAmerican a statement as can possibly be made. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I'm not deflecting. I'm sure you think everything is about you but I'm responding to other people. Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up
This discussion board is not for the exclusive use of Americans. The opinions of all who come her are welcome in every debate despite their country of citizenship. If you aren't comfortable with that, I suggest you go elsewhere.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
On the discussion of health care, it is especially important to take in the views of those who live with some form of universal health care, i.e. those who aren't American.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
With regard to food, isn't that the purpose of WIC, food stamps and welfare? And there are programs to help with housing as well. There can be a place in between doing nothing and taxing and redistributing so that everyone ends up the same. Pure capitalism and pure socialism are not the only options. Also, health care is somewhat unique in that a single payer system has a huge cost advantage over other systems. The government truly can do this better then industry.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
We have to be a law abiding community, even when we disagree with the laws.
Have you ever heard of civil disobedience? Henry David Thoreau? George Washington? Ben Franklin? Any of the dozens of politicians who broke English law in order to establish our nation? When we disagree with the laws, we have a duty to act to change them, or to peacefully and openly disobey them. If we feel that our liberties to do so are being infringed, then it is our duty to overthrow the current government. That is in the Declaration of Independence- it was a document detailing the reasons why the states were choosing to break the law.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Could you give an example of a government program you feel is (or could be) providing for the general welfare? Your "reasoning" about it is bizarre in the extreme.

Of course, given what we know of improved health outcomes in many countries with government health insurance, including among the wealthy, even your bizarre arguments are already dealt with. The evidence is clearly that a government health insurance program has the ability to improve the health of just about everyone in society. That's before we even start noticing the benefits on everyone of reduced healthcare costs (another thing the evidence makes clear can be had with single-payer insurance).

Providing for the general welfare:
Interstate Highways
Border Patrol
FBI
CIA
US Marshals
FDA
US Customs
TSA
Multi state projects, canals etc


Federal is Macro (general) Involving multiple states.

This is why we have Local, State, Federal. Federal shouldn't be involved in providing for the Micro (individual).

Micro (local/state)
- dry counties
- ordinances
- state law (health care, marriage, licensing, etc)

Macro
- general welfare of the country, not the individual. PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE not PROVIDE SPECIFIC WELFARE.

Promote:
1.
a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.

Provide:
1. To furnish; supply: provide food and shelter for a family.
2. To make available; afford: a room that provides ample sunlight through French windows.
3. To set down as a stipulation: an agreement that provides deadlines for completion of the work.


Improved health outcomes like this:

Pull your own teeth:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/15/england.dentists/index.html

Canada: The average amount of time spent waiting to receive treatment after referral by a general practitioner averaged 17.8 weeks across Canada. At 14.9 weeks, Ontario had the shortest waits. Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick had average waits of 25.8 weeks, 28.5 weeks, and 31.9 weeks, respectively.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20368/Canadians_Wait_Longer_for_Medical_Care.html

Die waiting:
http://www.medindia.net/news/Toronto-Patients-Die-Waiting-for-Emergency-Care-32814-1.htm


UK Die waiting (6 month waiting list for heart surgery) "A ULSTER University report published yesterday said one in ten people waiting for heart surgery will die before they reach the operating table."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3591667.stm
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Your examples miss the point. No one has claimed that the medical system in Canada and UK are flawless. The claim is that they have better outcomes than the US system. How many people die waiting for emergency treatement in the US? How many people die because they can't get needed surgery in the US?

Studies have in fact looked at this questions. In the US 100,000 more people die annually from preventable causes than would if we had a health care system as effective as those in France or Japan. (That includes those who are waiting for surgery or emergency treatment). That rate is higher than anywhere else in the developed world.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
On the discussion of health care, it is especially important to take in the views of those who live with some form of universal health care, i.e. those who aren't American.

Well, I live (or will be in a few weeks) with the Czech state Health plan. I'm quite enthused by it. It provides for regular (nearly) free checkups, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc, at a very low cost to the tax payer. Although Czechs now pay a flat tax of about 15%, the national health plans are quite adequate for your needs, especially as a younger person. I believe they generally try to allocate a greater amount of the fund towards older people (CZR has a relatively high median age), but private insurance is available as well, and it is highly competitive, as many people carry both plans, and don't necessarily need their private insurance. It seems to be a single payer system that is very well run.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
On the discussion of health care, it is especially important to take in the views of those who live with some form of universal health care, i.e. those who aren't American.

Well, I live (or will be in a few weeks) with the Czech state Health plan. I'm quite enthused by it. It provides for regular (nearly) free checkups, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc, at a very low cost to the tax payer. Although Czechs now pay a flat tax of about 15%, the national health plans are quite adequate for your needs, especially as a younger person. I believe they generally try to allocate a greater amount of the fund towards older people (CZR has a relatively high median age), but private insurance is available as well, and it is highly competitive, as many people carry both plans, and don't necessarily need their private insurance. It seems to be a single payer system that is very well run.
Wow. That sounds good indeed, no sarcism. If we could have a 15% flat tax that covered all these expenses, I would take that in an instant. I work one week a month just to pay for what comes out of my check. This doesn't include 7% sales tax, or $3000 per year property tax. I believe in the flat tax.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
You know Mal, I hate it when people take specific cases as a means of disproving a larger point and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Do you not remember whining about people doing this to you?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
The flat tax includes income tax and an optional single payer health and retirement system. There is also a much higher sales tax in Europe than in the US.

And, understand, unless you are a licensed private business owner or freelancer in CZ, you don't even have to file a tax return.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Right now, I pay 25% of my household income towards a health care plan that covers almost nothing and spends years fighting over payments. For example, they tried to claim that my pregnancy was a preexisting condition. Based on how long I had had coverage with them, I would have had a nearly 2 year pregnancy in order for that to be true.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
The problem with flat taxes is they disproportionately penalize poor people, who must spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
You know Mal, I hate it when people take specific cases as a means of disproving a larger point and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Do you not remember whining about people doing this to you?

The average waiting times for an entire country? A national story about people in a country choosing to pull their own teeth out rather than suffer and wait?

Not a specific case like "some people drop out of high school due to car accidents"

A bit different.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Not really. There are lots of countries, and that teeth story is just about the same as the car accidents. People pull out their own teeth, people get in car accidents. Not all of them, not all the time, not everywhere.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote:
Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law.
I'm not sure I can remember a time when they did.
I doubt anyone alive can remember those days.
In the beginning, I'm sure the constitutionality of every bill was in the front of their minds and hotly debated.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Uhuh. Yeah. Nostalgia is just *not* what it used to be.

Back in them good old days. Of polio. Oohhhhhh, those were the days...
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
The average waiting times for an entire country? A national story about people in a country choosing to pull their own teeth out rather than suffer and wait?
Once again mal, you are missing the point. What is the average waiting time for medical care in the US? How many people in the US choose to pull out their own teeth rather than pay for a dentist?

And lets not look at just one particular treatment, we need to look at all the reasons people might die or suffer from inadequate access to medical care.

And I gave you that number. In the US there are 109 preventable deaths per 100,000 people or 330,000 deaths every year that could have been prevented with adequate and timely access to medical care. The US has the highest rate of preventable deaths of any developed country.

That's right, no matter how many stories you find about Canadians and English dying in hospital waiting rooms, there are more stories out there about Americans dying for similar reasons.

The point isn't that those systems are flawless -- the point is that the US system is even worse.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
I'm not deflecting. I'm sure you think everything is about you but I'm responding to other people. Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up
This discussion board is not for the exclusive use of Americans. The opinions of all who come her are welcome in every debate despite their country of citizenship. If you aren't comfortable with that, I suggest you go elsewhere.
I probably wouldn't continue to engage in an openly hostile conversation about US politics with a foreign person.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I probably wouldn't continue to engage in an openly hostile conversation about US politics with a foreign person.
Why not? You'd insult France to the French.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Now, that's a good deflection, malanthrop.

Maybe if you divert the discussion to WMDs in Iraq people will be diverted from all the questions you have failed to answer about health care.


I'm not deflecting. I'm sure you think everything is about you but I'm responding to other people. Are you even an American? If you're not, shut up.
A person who has no factual conceptualization about a number of concepts, including but not limited to constitutionality, is jejune enough to be telling me that I should shut up about the issues unless I'm American.

This is where you drift to after making the "I bet you want a marxist utopia" comment, eh?

This is fun! You didn't even really reply to my last commentary on health care. Keep going, please. You're certainly sure to win people over this way.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Blithe is precisely such a word. I have never seen it used in written or spoken language as other than a pejorative. It may mean "carefree and joyful" but always in a context in which being carefree and joyful is at least somewhat misplaced.

I strongly disagree. It has definitely gone out of fashion, but look at literature from 50-150 years ago, and people are frequently described as "blithe" and it will clearly be positive.

Even in more recent works, I have definitely seen people described as "blithe spirits" and it's at worst neutral. Often positive.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Why not? You'd insult France to the French.
No one likes France...including the French [Wink]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Blithe has always had a distinctly negative connotation in nearly all of the contexts I have seen it used in. If I call someone blithe, it's not a good thing. It, at best, refers to their lack of sensible awareness.

Of course, I do love those obscure ways of calling someone a tool. I used 'jejune' and 'puling' just today, in fact!
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote:
Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law.
I'm not sure I can remember a time when they did.
I doubt anyone alive can remember those days.
In the beginning, I'm sure the constitutionality of every bill was in the front of their minds and hotly debated.

I'm not interested in getting in this silly argument about whether or not people should be allowed to argue what they believe, I'd much rather stick to the arguments presented.

And on this particular point, I don't think they worried too much about the constitutionality of laws even in the beginning. I think that maybe in the first year or so that people worried about the constitutionality in so far as they wondered, "are we doing this right?"

I think their perception has almost always been that its their job as legislators to make the laws, and its the courts to put them through the constitutional wringer. I don't necessarily agree with this line of thought, but that doesn't change the fact that its how its seen.

Oh, and if you really want to see how little politicians cared for constitutionality in the old days, look at Jackson with the Trail of Tears and his opinion of the Supreme Court.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The Anne of Green Gables books use "blithe" all the time and it is clearly a positive and pleasant things to be. It's an adjective Anne uses to describe herself on joyous occasions.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
L.M. Montgomery is one of the authors I had in mind. [Smile] She has other blithe characters as well.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
To be fair, though, Canadian.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Blithe is precisely such a word. I have never seen it used in written or spoken language as other than a pejorative. It may mean "carefree and joyful" but always in a context in which being carefree and joyful is at least somewhat misplaced.

I strongly disagree. It has definitely gone out of fashion, but look at literature from 50-150 years ago, and people are frequently described as "blithe" and it will clearly be positive.

Even in more recent works, I have definitely seen people described as "blithe spirits" and it's at worst neutral. Often positive.

I agree with you, but I don't think that the charming but out of fashion use of the word is sufficient to have cause any confusion given the context of the conversation.

ETA: And given the spirits in the play, I don't think Mr. Coward meant it in a nice way, either. Shelley may have but he was referring to a birdbrain.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Even in more recent works, I have definitely seen people described as "blithe spirits" and it's at worst neutral. Often positive.

By more recent, I mean within the past 10 years. The books were probably rather New-Agey, though.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I believe in the flat tax.
Of course you do, it's regressive.

quote:
I probably wouldn't continue to engage in an openly hostile conversation about US politics with a foreign person.
Hey, who here is foreign? I'm foreign! I've got a suspicion that if foreign citizenship is all it takes to get you to clam up, there'll suddenly be a lot of e-immigrants here on Hatrack!

quote:
And on this particular point, I don't think they worried too much about the constitutionality of laws even in the beginning
They sure didn't.

Another of malanthrop's...I hesitate to call them 'arguments'...debunked as complete bullcrap.
 
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

Another of malanthrop's...I hesitate to call them 'arguments'...debunked as complete bullcrap. [/QB]

Careful, Mal'll find some context in which bullcrap is a positive adjective.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Epictetus:

quote:
Polititians no longer weigh the constitutionality of the actions they take. They just vote them into law.

I'm not sure I can remember a time when they did.

I doubt anyone alive can remember those days.
In the beginning, I'm sure the constitutionality of every bill was in the front of their minds and hotly debated.

I include my memory of history books in that statement.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Careful, Mal'll find some context in which bullcrap is a positive adjective.
Well, relative to what his posts really are...it kinda is a positive adjective, actually.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
It must be good to have the history of mankind in your head.

Silly me to make the assumption that our founding fathers would consider the constitution when proposing legislation.

Bull crap makes great fertilizer.

Here's a couple people much smarter on the subject than anyone in this room. I'll let them speak for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHE_0bCSIVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlNi9q-p1l4&feature=PlayList&p=D0F6546D26D09C02&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

You want to know who caused the economic collapse and what caused it...good social programs pushed by liberals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
This thread needs a dose of deerpark.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
The last youtube link is especially entertaining; the title is "Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown"

You know, you would have thought that if McCain was so keenly aware of the coming financial crisis, he would have been even remotely prepared for it during his campaign, as opposed to being taken flat-footed by it.
 
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop

You want to know who caused the economic collapse and what caused it...good social programs pushed by liberals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

I can't view these now- is this the old blame CRA argument?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
jejune
How had I gotten through my entire education without knowing that word? Come to think- I did learn it around the 10th grade, but never used it once. Thanks!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
I strongly disagree. It has definitely gone out of fashion, but look at literature from 50-150 years ago, and people are frequently described as "blithe" and it will clearly be positive.

Even in more recent works, I have definitely seen people described as "blithe spirits" and it's at worst neutral. Often positive.

I don't disagree, but don't you agree that the context of the sentence made the meaning quite clear?

It occurs to me that perhaps the positive meaning is favored in British literature? I seem to remember it from long and boring Romantic period novels about windswept bluffs and bread and cheese.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I don't disagree, but don't you agree that the context of the sentence made the meaning quite clear?

I was not responding to the original use of the word in this thread.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Didn't think so. Just thread drift I suppose.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
quote:
It must be good to have the history of mankind in your head.

Silly me to make the assumption that our founding fathers would consider the constitution when proposing legislation.

It's not a comprehensive knowledge, but yes, it is nice. It informs me that the idealized version we often have of the past, and especially of our country's founding fathers should be taken with a grain of salt. Intelligence and foresight in contemporary politicians exists only in small doses, just as it did then.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The last youtube link is especially entertaining; the title is "Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown"

You know, you would have thought that if McCain was so keenly aware of the coming financial crisis, he would have been even remotely prepared for it during his campaign, as opposed to being taken flat-footed by it.

He was reassuring and confident to the American people while Obama immediately found the type of crisis that helps get Democrats elected. Always looking for a place to put that wedge. Funny how McCain was ridiculed for saying the fundamentals are sound when the Dow was at 11000 and Obama started saying the exact same thing at 7000.

Obama had the nerve to ridicule McCain for having multiple homes...McCain lets his relatives live in them while Obama's relatives live in the projects or a hut on a few dollars a month. How can you believe he cares about the American people when he clearly doesn't care about his own family. He is loyal to no one, not his lifelong pastor nor his beloved Aunt Zeitouni. I could maybe buy the fact that he didn't know she was here. He does know now and politically it wouldn't look to good to help her, so he'll let her sit in the projects.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
He was reassuring and confident to the American people while Obama immediately found the type of crisis that helps get Democrats elected.
He was meandering and clueless and kept making statements he had to apologize for, such as going on about how the fundamentals of our economy were strong during a time where they quite manifestly were weak and imperiled.

And, in contrast, you say that Obama instead 'found' the type of crisis that helps get democrats elected? I assume you don't mean the years and years of incompetence preceding his election, so you must mean the financial crisis. Was he just keeping it in his pocket to spring on the republicans during a strategic time, then?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote:
It must be good to have the history of mankind in your head.

Silly me to make the assumption that our founding fathers would consider the constitution when proposing legislation.

It's not a comprehensive knowledge, but yes, it is nice. It informs me that the idealized version we often have of the past, and especially of our country's founding fathers should be taken with a grain of salt. Intelligence and foresight in contemporary politicians exists only in small doses, just as it did then.
It wasn't their foresight that lead them to create those principles. They had an abundance of hindsight and wanted a country free from European failure and tyranny. It was a new world and they knew the old one quite well. So if hindsight is 20/20 their principles were clearly in focus.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Obama had the nerve to ridicule McCain for having multiple homes...McCain lets his relatives live in them while Obama's relatives live in the projects or a hut on a few dollars a month. How can you believe he cares about the American people when he clearly doesn't care about his own family.

Ah! and lest I forget.

quote:
reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and "earning less than a dollar a day."

The reports left him angry.

"I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.

"I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges," Obama said.

Obama, who is in his mid-20s, is learning to become a mechanic and is active in youth groups in Huruma. He said he tries to help the community as much as he can.

At least one of his neighbors feels that perhaps the candidate should help the brother.

"I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life," said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama's house.

But George Obama will have none of it. He draws inspiration from his famous half-brother.

See, George Obama turns down the suggestion that he should be aided by Obama due to blood connection. He seems to want to be able to keep himself up by his own bootstraps.

You know, that concept you're so enamored with, albeit only where and when it has nothing to do with a political smear campaign.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
He was reassuring and confident to the American people while Obama immediately found the type of crisis that helps get Democrats elected.
He was meandering and clueless and kept making statements he had to apologize for, such as going on about how the fundamentals of our economy were strong during a time where they quite manifestly were weak and imperiled.

And, in contrast, you say that Obama instead 'found' the type of crisis that helps get democrats elected? I assume you don't mean the years and years of incompetence preceding his election, so you must mean the financial crisis. Was he just keeping it in his pocket to spring on the republicans during a strategic time, then?

The fundamentals of the economy are strong and were strong. Obama wants you to believe capitalism has failed but the failure was due to government intervention and regulation.

The years and years of government incompetence leading back thirty years, yes. Home ownership became a right (like you hope healthcare will be) and government programs and government banks were used to sell homes to people who had no business being homeowners. The greedy banks wouldn't give them zero down loans but Fannie and Freddie would. The "predatory loans" were loans the government made possible and pushed under SEC threat. You're blaming the hooker instead of the pimp. Those loans were bundled up into Fannie and Freddie. When 40% of the loans are in two government banks and those banks collapse, serious problems occur. Watch the previous video again. They were warned repeatedly but any action would only "make homeownership more difficult for poor people". Government good intentions are the source of many problems.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I watched the video, twice. It does not make your case well at all. That you had a video to link to did not make it a tenable approach towards asserting your claims, any more so than you could get away with your argument against healthcare by saying 'it's unconstitutional.'

In the case of the financial meltdown, the 'good intentions' of government were more or less a matter of nonregulation policy towards stuff like cds and mbs.

You are also completely incorrect in your assertion that home ownership had become 'a right.' It absolutely had not.

This isn't just a dubious interpretation, it's a full-blown misapprehension.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Obama had the nerve to ridicule McCain for having multiple homes...McCain lets his relatives live in them while Obama's relatives live in the projects or a hut on a few dollars a month. How can you believe he cares about the American people when he clearly doesn't care about his own family.

Ah! and lest I forget.

quote:
reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and "earning less than a dollar a day."

The reports left him angry.

"I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.

"I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges," Obama said.

Obama, who is in his mid-20s, is learning to become a mechanic and is active in youth groups in Huruma. He said he tries to help the community as much as he can.

At least one of his neighbors feels that perhaps the candidate should help the brother.

"I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life," said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama's house.

But George Obama will have none of it. He draws inspiration from his famous half-brother.

See, George Obama turns down the suggestion that he should be aided by Obama due to blood connection. He seems to want to be able to keep himself up by his own bootstraps.

You know, that concept you're so enamored with, albeit only where and when it has nothing to do with a political smear campaign.

You conveniently ignored the aunt. I'm sure his relatives in the African paradise of Kenya are doing quite well.

The fact remains, he has elevated no one. Not his aunt, not his brothers and not the poor people of South Side Chicago. He's left nothing but division in his wake, division propels his career. I wish a few of you were more like his brother. Keep yourself up by your own bootstraps and buy your own healthcare. I respect Obama's brother more than any of you. Thank you for the info and setting me straight on that.

[ April 03, 2009, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I watched the video, twice. It does not make your case well at all. That you had a video to link to did not make it a tenable approach towards asserting your claims, any more so than you could get away with your argument against healthcare by saying 'it's unconstitutional.'

In the case of the financial meltdown, the 'good intentions' of government were more or less a matter of nonregulation policy towards stuff like cds and mbs.

You are also completely incorrect in your assertion that home ownership had become 'a right.' It absolutely had not.

This isn't just a dubious interpretation, it's a full-blown misapprehension.

It shows where bleeding heart democrats were repeatedly warned. It shows them defending the lending practices as sound. It shows them playing the division game by rejecting off hand any concens about the banks and mortgage lending practices, for the sake of poor people.

Ironic that a liberal government social program developed out of the great depression may have kicked off our second great depression. Do you think the new social programs will fare better than Social Security, Medicare and Fannie and Freddie. Don't forget where these wonderfully successful government social programs came from, govt good intentions. All going broke or broken.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

As of 2008[update], Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market.[6]

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 [7] as a mechanism to make mortgages more available to low-income families. It was added to the Federal Home Mortgage association, a government agency in the wake of the Great Depression in 1938, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in order to facilitate liquidity within the mortgage market. In 1968, the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget.[8] Consequently, Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). In 1970, the government created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), commonly known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and, thus, facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market. Since the creation of the GSEs, there has been debate surrounding their role in the mortgage market, their relationship with the government, and whether or not they are indeed necessary. This debate gained relevance due to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and subprime mortgage crisis that began in 2007. Despite this debate, Fannie Mae, as well as Ginnie Mae and later Freddie Mac, has played an integral part in the development of what was the most successful mortgage market in the world which has allowed U.S. citizens to benefit from one of the highest home ownership percentages in the world.


[edit] Contributing Factors and Early Warnings
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration[9] to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers. At the same time, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[10]

In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[11]

The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's responsible underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
It wasn't their foresight that lead them to create those principles. They had an abundance of hindsight and wanted a country free from European failure and tyranny.
Goddamn you are naive. Where do you think they got the philosophy of, not to mention the support for their burgeoning nation? Do you think they conjured it out of thin air?... France, is the answer we were looking for, France.

I like the bit about European "failure." It was only the richest region in the world for centuries, and it only remains among the most wealthy and technologically advanced cultural centers of the world going on, what? 700 years, depending on how you want to count it?

But no, no, you're right; "Europe of the 18th Century"= "The European Union Today." No difference. No. Discernible. Differences.

Gee wiz, I'm pretty sure the French and British Empires continued to rule the world through most of another two centuries... but whatever.

Read a book.


Edit: And Mal, in regards to the economic situation, from my position as an amateur with a simple interest in the economy- you are completely, and utterly, bewilderingly, lost. You've been listening to the blame game for too long. Seriously- read a book. Listen to a radio program that adresses the problem, rather than the allocation of fault. Read a wikipedia entry on it for heaven's sake. It doesn't matter. The important thing, for you, is to actually learn something. You are unfortunately beginning a few steps behind basic knowledge- you've been indoctrinated with the kind of party crap that will never allow you to actually understand things.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I've probably taken more economics and accounting classes than you.

France was a great ally, no doubt about it. The phylosophies grew over time from the Greeks, so what. France was, almost. America perfected it. And we've repaid our debt over and over. We're the big freind who is always there to protect the kid who was nice to us in the beginning.

Europe was the most advanced until America came along. Muslims like to talk about the good old days of two millenia ago as well. Why don't you tout your Italian ancestry and remind me of the Roman empire?

You're right about Mortgage Backed Securities though. That was a suckers bet. Only a fool would hold securities backed by a government bank. A bank that held 50% of all American home loans; loans to the riskiest borrowers in our society. It was a house of cards, but the crumbling keystone was the government and it's good intentions.
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
I don't really have much to add to this discussion except that it has reminded me of two recent SMBC comics.

(Warning: Mild Language. And if you're easily offended, I'd not go through the archives.)

On the founding fathers.
On economic arguments and the qualifications of the debaters.

... You may now resume your discussion.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
As far as helping family, there are often more issues involved with that. I could be making good money and I would still be very hesitant to help the majority of my relatives. And while I feel like I have good reasons, I would not want to explain to the world those reasons (more for their sakes then mine).
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
America perfected it.
Oh dearie me!
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I know I'm sort of perpetuating this thread and being hypocritical by doing this but why do you think it is that we allow somebody we almost universally agree to not only be incorrect on the vast majority of his assertions but also verges on the incomprehensible control so much of our energies the way we are doing?

I'm as much to blame as anyone here for this. We know not to feed the trolls, and this fellow--this self proclaimed 'bad man', or caricature of a bad man (jury's still out)--fits the definition of troll in all but in the fact that to all appearances he appears to genuinely believe this nonsense he spews on us. And yet we allow this 'bad man' to steal our time and our forum space and turn it into something hopeless.

Perhaps it is because we believe him to genuinely represent a fraction of our world and we as people genuinely want to try to "fix" that part. I think that's why, despite being totally incredulous and not really expecting to make any impact on someone so removed from reality, I keep returning to these threads.

"malanthrop" has started two or three threads that are constantly at the top of the forum. They are pages and pages long, pages that represent probably literally hundreds of productive work lost for those who took the time to respond to this clown. It's bread and circuses.

Even at our worst, when we fight bitterly and people storm out, when posts are deleted and people banned or warned for their behavior, I feel like we accomplish more than we are accomplishing in these threads. In these threads, we are occupied by futility.

Perhaps we return, then, because it's easy. We like that malanthrop is such a totally unbelievable character, we like that there is somebody so bizarre, so incomprehensible, that he outdoes every other person Hatrack has ever seen. Everyone likes a force that's easy to defeat. Who knows, perhaps that's malanthrop's goal in the first place. Who knows?

Because I think that what malanthrop does is, like all trolls, a form of terrorism. Fundamentally, whether he is having us on or not, these threads aren't about politics or morals or anything worth discussing, they're about malanthrop, just as suicide terrorism seems to not be about what it pretends to be about, but simply about the selfish, angry feelings of the perpetrators. All we're really doing is talking about malanthrop and this temper tantrum he decided sometime in March to unleash upon a load of largely innocent strangers.

Either way, I know I can't ask anyone here not to post anymore on these threads. I know that I would find it hard to not keep coming back, not to keep trying, not to enjoy the ridiculousness of it all. But perhaps we can just recognize that where we rage against somebody who amounts to apparently nothing in terms of all the things we value here: intelligence, knowledge, common sense, the ability to respond. We may not all embody these all the time and we certainly don't agree on which facts we should follow, but I think we all value them.

I'm not sure what we're supposed to think of malanthrop. I'm not sure if I prefer the idea of him as a misguided real person or a deceitful person with far too much spare time. For God's sake malanthrop, whoever you are, go for a walk, enjoy the Spring (if you have it where you are), start over.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I'm sure his relatives in the African paradise of Kenya are doing quite well.
Just so we're clear on this: you're still not racist, right?
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
Teshi- (I use 'you' in a nonspecific manner, I'm not directly referring to you if that makes sense.)

I think we all recognize we make a choice when we post in these threads. I, for the most part, avoid them. But occasionally I like to interject a little bit on the topic because I think it's interesting. Maybe for the benefit of other people, but I still know I'm choosing to 'feed the troll' when I do it. If someone is taking the topic too seriously and its affecting their their life outside of the thread I absolutely agree that they should just take a deep breath and walk away. You don't need to keep reading it or responding. If you don't have any problems with it, I don't see the problem with staying in the thread.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
I know I'm sort of perpetuating this thread and being hypocritical by doing this but why do you think it is that we allow somebody we almost universally agree to not only be incorrect on the vast majority of his assertions but also verges on the incomprehensible control so much of our energies the way we are doing?

I am entertained by it.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
[QB] I know I'm sort of perpetuating this thread and being hypocritical by doing this but why do you think it is that we allow somebody we almost universally agree to not only be incorrect on the vast majority of his assertions but also verges on the incomprehensible control so much of our energies the way we are doing?

Honestly, I think that it's at least in part because Hatrack has been pretty slow lately. Responding to this posters various personae is something to do.

That said, I do scratch my head a bit when people continue to respond to the guy. I made the mistake of doing so once, but have succeeded in resisting the temptation since then.

I think that another reason why people might respond to him is because of a feeling that to leave his assertions unchallenged is to indicate agreement with them. Another might be that people feel that while the poster is just having us on, saying whatever exaggerated, jumbled, confused collection of stereotypically conservative talking points, there might be some who are swayed by individual elements of what he's saying. They're essentially presenting their arguments to that person, hoping to convince them.

Mostly, though, I think we're just bored.


quote:
we like that there is somebody so bizarre, so incomprehensible, that he outdoes every other person Hatrack has ever seen.
Outdoes in what respect? I think I've seen every bit of his shtick done better and more creatively over the years.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I think a part of the reason we can't seem to help ourselves much is that, however rare malanthrop's sort of blather may be within our own circles of friends and here on Hatrack, it's actually not rare at all in the wider world. And you can't tell them explicitly and repeatedly how wrong, offensive, and ignorant they are in person the way you can online.
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
He was right about the Post Office.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Was he?

OK, that's one. Stopped clocks and all.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Was he?

OK, that's one. Stopped clocks and all.

I don't think he was right about the Post Office. Yes I am emotionally invested in that I suggested it, but I still don't see that it's a bad example of what he wanted. If the police departments were always in budget and successful he'd simply say, "well if private citizens were allowed to create their own police force they could do just as good a job!"
 
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
 
Vadon,
That economic argument comic is some funny stuff! Thanks for the comedy relief.

Edit: Here it is Again! An Economic Argument.

[ April 04, 2009, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: beleaguered ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
He was right about the Post Office.

No he wasn't.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I've probably taken more economics and accounting classes than you.

I haven't taken any- and yet I can see how stupid your conclusions are. I wonder what kind of classes they were.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
In case anyone needs some irrelevant credentials-waving I have taken more economics and accounting classes than I can count and I run my own business; evidently it qualifies me to do some things I was previously unaware of, such as tell people that I am pretty much automatically right in internet debates.

I should try it out sometime!
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
He was right about the Post Office.

No he wasn't.
Yes he was.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
For the record, I have no idea whether malanthrop was right or not about the Post Office. I wasn't involved in that part of the discussion, so I don't remember it very well.

Him being right once hardly disproves my idea, though, that malanthrop is an avatar for all the conservative blowhard jackasses we encounter in life and in media who can't confront directly.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
As far as I can tell, malanthrop really honestly thinks that he is 'confronting directly.'

So he's a blowhard jackass, sure, plenty of us are. It's the internet! I would be nothing short of a massive hypocrite if I was mad at him for not being polite. His hallmark, if anything, is that he is representative of a large contingent of Americans, be they diehard conservative or diehard liberal, who really do not possess a suite of critical thinking tools, who bite into ideologically friendly preconceptions and never let go, and who have thought processes rife with fallacy and concrete axiom. He's like every grandparent who won't stop forwarding you chain emails about how Obama is a muslim atheist homosexual and how ron paul and zombie reagan say we should switch to the gold standard and break up the unions. Or, to pick an example from the other side of the coin, those that forward you links from DU about how bush was pretty much behind 9/11 short of actually flying the planes himself while cackling like snidely whiplash. The type that is chronically misinformed and misled, who get their information from shoddy sources, who pick out the answers they want to believe and try to ram them into your skull as Gospel Truth, and who honestly have a genuine misapprehension of their own ability to make sense or have convincing and logical arguments.

Malanthrop (or whoever is behind the alt, assuming this isn't a giant trolling) honestly thinks that he's 'confronting' the issues! the meandering is just a consequence of stuff he does that he does not understand how not to do! He would fare far better in havens for this sort of self-reinforcement, like redstate or freerepublic.
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
For the record, I have no idea whether malanthrop was right or not about the Post Office.

I said he was right. That should be good enough.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I said he was right. That should be good enough.
You say lots of stuff.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
1194 stuffs to be specific.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
For the record, I have no idea whether malanthrop was right or not about the Post Office.

I said he was right. That should be good enough.
The post office met the qualification of his challenge. Being unhappy about that turn of events, he made a diversionary remark about the monopolistic nature of the post office. But even on that point he was not correct. They have a monopoly over a type of letter, but not all letters, and in the areas where they do not have a monopoly they often have lower rates than private shipping companies.
 
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Hey, I was wondering...does anyone besides Malanthrop believe that the cost of health insurance (the full cost, not partially paid for by an employer) could possibly be less than any amount of cell phone, TV, and internet services that a normal person would use?

And of course, there's the issue that if you actually have any health problems, good luck getting a company to sell private insurance to you at any price...
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
My opinions are in no way ucommon. The majority of the people I know, neighbors, coworkers, freinds and family are on the same page as I. It may be uncommon for my opinions to be expressed in this forum and to be sure, there are forums where I would fit right in, as you do here. You don't seek to be challenged or debated you only seek affirmation of your beliefs or challenges in minutia. I've tolerated your insults and ignorance much longer than most would. The difference betwee many of you and I is you are led by emotion with twisted rationalizations. You justify one wrong with another and throw insults when pinned in a corner. I sincerely apologize for disrupting your kumbaya session on hatrack. Continue to pat each other on the back and reaffirm your false logic. You lose on the basis of ideas but you win with wedges and emotion.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
My opinions are in no way ucommon. The majority of the people I know, neighbors, coworkers, freinds and family are on the same page as I. It may be uncommon for my opinions to be expressed in this forum and to be sure, there are forums where I would fit right in, as you do here. You don't seek to be challenged or debated you only seek affirmation of your beliefs or challenges in minutia.
Actually there is far more diversity of opinion here than most of the forums out there.

Furthermore, the question wasn't about your opinions in general but about a specific opinion -- one which has a quantitative answer. That specific question was the belief that health insurance could possibly be cheaper than any common combination of TV, cell phone and internet use.

Like I said that question has a quantitative answer. In the US, the average per capita health care expenditure is $5,711. So the average cost of insurance for a family of 4, should come out to $22,544, or about $1900/month. The cost of private insurance is almost certainly much lower than that (around half I believe) but that is because public insurance (medicare) pays for the oldest and most expensive segment of the population.

In Finland (the OECD country with the cheapest health care), the average annual per capita health care cost is $2,104 or $8,416 for a family of four or about $700/month. Its unreasonable to expect that a family would be able to get reasonable insurance coverage for less than that in any developed country. How families do you know who spend more than $700/month on cell phones, cable and internet? I don't know any.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
You don't have any capacity to recognize ignorance or logic (false or otherwise), or the ability to figure out what differentiates solid reasoning from swiss-cheese rationalizations.

Go back to your bowling league buddies and talk-radio -- places where your monosyllabic grade-school rhetoric is a cut above average. Don't get mad at hatrack because you're not smart enough to see the (crucial) distinctions dozens of people have tried to show you.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
My opinions are in no way ucommon. The majority of the people I know, neighbors, coworkers, freinds and family are on the same page as I. It may be uncommon for my opinions to be expressed in this forum and to be sure, there are forums where I would fit right in, as you do here. You don't seek to be challenged or debated you only seek affirmation of your beliefs or challenges in minutia. I've tolerated your insults and ignorance much longer than most would. The difference betwee many of you and I is you are led by emotion with twisted rationalizations. You justify one wrong with another and throw insults when pinned in a corner. I sincerely apologize for disrupting your kumbaya session on hatrack. Continue to pat each other on the back and reaffirm your false logic. You lose on the basis of ideas but you win with wedges and emotion.

Well, to be fair, there are some fairly nutty conservatives on these boards, and they haven't much (or at all) supported you. Frankly, I think they are embarrassed by you. I would be.

But thank you for throwing in the towel. I was waiting for your declare victory and go home address. Have a happy life somewhere else.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I am always -- always -- sad when someone decides they aren't a good fit for Hatrack. And I am actually angry with a couple of you for hurrying that along. [Frown]
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I am always -- always -- sad when someone decides they aren't a good fit for Hatrack. And I am actually angry with a couple of you for hurrying that along. [Frown]

Twice in one day I'm agreeing with Tom *checks for flying pigs*. I wish I could have said this earlier but I felt like I've been saying it a lot as of late and that I'd simply sound like a nag saying it again.

I hope malanthrop reconsiders because I believe this forum can offer alot more than a hostile environment where conservatives are chased away.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
BB,
Do you really believe that malanthrop/beleagured was given a hard time because he was conservative?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I actually think that the initial question is an important one to consider, though. Should there be additional qualifications for the right to vote? Why do we (with some minor exceptions) regard everyone as possessing the right to vote. Those are, to me, very important discussions to have.

I think there should*. Voting is as much a responsibility as it is a right. If you are not fulfilling your responsibility, I don't think you deserve the right.

In most small settings, people who clearly don't know what they are talking about may be humored or taken aside and had things explained to them or some other way of dealing with them, but they are usually not given equal weight to others who are well informed. Should this change in larger situations?

* - I'm not talking from a legal standpoint, but rather one of public perception.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I am always -- always -- sad when someone decides they aren't a good fit for Hatrack. And I am actually angry with a couple of you for hurrying that along. [Frown]

:: shrug :: malanthrop's an alt. He's a poorly conceived character, and he just exited stage left. Whoever's writing him is unlikely to have been so offended by their character's treatment that they'll go away. They'll just make up a new one. Or maybe they'll have an existing character come back from "vacation".
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Exactly. I hardly feel bad when someone gets angry because the playground suddenly isn't playing fair.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
I too am sad. Malanthrop is much smarter than me, and his points illuminate me in ways I never thought possible.

Good thing that beleaguered guy is still here...
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
I'm not sure malanthrop is an alt (easily could be, but I know there are real people out there who act that way). Assuming he is real, I think it is unfortunate that he feels driven off, but I don't think there was any other way for this to end. Hopefully he'll learn a bit from the process and approach the next internet debate he stumbles upon and/or initiates with a bit more care.
 
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Oddly enough, I meant the question literally, not as a rhetorical device. I should have noticed that it would come across as an insult, and I'm sorry.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
Exactly. I hardly feel bad when someone gets angry because the playground suddenly isn't playing fair.

Why wouldn't you?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I am always -- always -- sad when someone decides they aren't a good fit for Hatrack. And I am actually angry with a couple of you for hurrying that along. [Frown]

You took plenty of potshots at him and you know it =)
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
I'm not sure malanthrop is an alt (easily could be, but I know there are real people out there who act that way).

I find it very difficult to believe that he's anything but. I know a lot of people in real life that are of the type that he was intended to be, but his creator went too far with the character.

quote:
Assuming he is real, I think it is unfortunate that he feels driven off
Oh, absolutely.

quote:
but I don't think there was any other way for this to end.
I disagree. We've had people here occasionally who were able to hone both their thinking and modify their tone, and who became valued members of the community.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Yeah, I have to agree with Samprimary. I view Tom's claims of sadness with skepticism to the extent I'm almost sure he's joking.

Whether Malanthrop is real or not, I'm not sad nor even do I consider it unfortunate he felt driven off. What I would feel sad for, rather, is that he was the sort of person (real or not) that would feel driven off by receiving scorn for never really answering direct challenges and never exhibiting anything like critical thinking or good faith in a discussion.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
BB,
Do you really believe that malanthrop/beleagured was given a hard time because he was conservative?

No, but by that I mean that was not the sole reason. I don't much care if the forum is a better place without him, I do care when conversation degenerates into a pissing match. Yes people made valid points, no not everyone was rude, but even the people making valid points often presented those ideas in such a manner that it would be a bitter pill to swallow. Malanthrop, if he was sincere was a newcomer here. He doesn't know the ins and outs of who thinks what or who talks in what manner. I give Orincoro a bit more benefit of the doubt when he says things are that are rude because I've come to expect that. When I was new, King of Men completely floored me in threads concerning religion.

I do feel that this forum in terms of the American political spectrum is settled middle left. It seems like a person who tends right will find more vocal opposition than somebody who tends left. This dynamic was in part good for me as I joined hatrack with quite a few conservative tendencies that I have since revised. But I've also had to leave threads not because I couldn't stand the heat, but because I don't much care for posturing, accusation, and disdain in my conversations. Malanthrop was not the most gracious person in his posting style, but neither were many of those disagreeing with him.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I do feel that this forum in terms of the American political spectrum is settled middle left. It seems like a person who tends right will find more vocal opposition than somebody who tends left.

This forum (and Ornery) are considerably further right than any - work, church, family, social - other part of my life.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I do feel that this forum in terms of the American political spectrum is settled middle left. It seems like a person who tends right will find more vocal opposition than somebody who tends left.

This forum (and Ornery) are considerably further right than any - work, church, family, social - other part of my life.
Reset your entire life and move out to Utah and I think you will find that is decidedly not the case.

But I suppose that is beside the point. I was talking about a national average. I'm not strongly invested in my statement that this forum is a bit more liberal progressive than the national curve, but that "feels" like it is the case.

Were I to post that I had given up on religion, I think I would have much less conflict than if I were to say I was converting to Christianity from atheism.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
You took plenty of potshots at him and you know it =)
Yes. But if you can't see the difference between my shots and, say, Rakeesh's, remind me to introduce you to my friend "Bloody Obvious." [Smile]

quote:
I view Tom's claims of sadness with skepticism to the extent I'm almost sure he's joking.
No, I'm not joking. Neither do I think mal was an alt. I think he had alts, and am confident he lied quite extensively about his background, but I believe he was otherwise a legitimate voice. I think he could have learned to make his points more effectively if we'd had the patience to train him, instead of dogpiling the guy and going for the cheap insults.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
...
But I suppose that is beside the point. I was talking about a national average. I'm not strongly invested in my statement that this forum is a bit more liberal progressive than the national curve, but that "feels" like it is the case.

Perhaps.

A partial reason for this from my POV is that the forum isn't really just an American "national" forum but is an American "national" forum with a decent dose of foreigners such as myself (and American expats) who do a good job of skewing the balance leftward.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
This forum (and Ornery) are considerably further right than any - work, church, family, social - other part of my life.

This forum (and Sakeriver) are considerably further left than any - work, church, family, socal - other part of my life.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
...
But I suppose that is beside the point. I was talking about a national average. I'm not strongly invested in my statement that this forum is a bit more liberal progressive than the national curve, but that "feels" like it is the case.

Perhaps.

A partial reason for this from my POV is that the forum isn't really just an American "national" forum but is an American "national" forum with a decent dose of foreigners such as myself (and American expats) who do a good job of skewing the balance leftward.

I think this is quite possible, even likely. But even if this forum was as left as Eugene Debs I should still expect that if Sean Hannity showed up on this forum that he by himself would make a fool of himself rather than us goading him on and joining the mess.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I do feel that this forum in terms of the American political spectrum is settled middle left. It seems like a person who tends right will find more vocal opposition than somebody who tends left.

This forum (and Ornery) are considerably further right than any - work, church, family, social - other part of my life.
Reset your entire life and move out to Utah and I think you will find that is decidedly not the case.

But I suppose that is beside the point. I was talking about a national average. I'm not strongly invested in my statement that this forum is a bit more liberal progressive than the national curve, but that "feels" like it is the case.


Right. And if you reset your life and moved to Chicago, your experience would be different. I am not disputing that it feels liberal progressive to you; I am pointing out that it feels fairly conservative to me.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
This forum (and Orney) are so far right they don't really even make it onto the political map in Canada, let alone in any of those four elements of my personal life.

BlackBlade: I'm not sure I understand, probably because I don't really know either of those people.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Mucus: Eugene Debs, one of my heroes.

Sean Hannity, somebody who I'd get into a lot of arguments with.

If you don't have time, Eugene Debs was a far left socialist, and Sean Hannity is a media pundit who strongly promotes conservatism.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
This forum is far the left of Ornery. Speaking as a liberal, I'd still say it's slightly to the left of the American Center. Can't say much about the rest of the world.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
That's changed over the years as well. I think it's been getting a little more left as time goes by.

Of course, so has the country. If you look at opinion polls for gay marriage and drug legalization (for instance) you'll see that in the last 10 years the entire nation has taken a big step to the left.

In my completely biased view, I think that's because the religious right in this country is flat out wrong, and that hatrack/America is moving to the left because more people are starting to realize that. Eight years of Bush seems to have helped the trend as well.
 
Posted by beIeagered (Member # 12016) on :
 
I'm not sure what it means when you say that malanthrope is an alt, but I for one will miss his input here. I have always found his contributions to be well thought out and to express a level of maturity that is refreshing.

If you are reading this, malanthrope, I hope that you continue to participate in the Hatrack community.
 
Posted by maIanthrop (Member # 12015) on :
 
That's malanTHROP, not malanTHROPE, you moron.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
No, I'm not joking. Neither do I think mal was an alt. I think he had alts, and am confident he lied quite extensively about his background, but I believe he was otherwise a legitimate voice.
Well, that makes sense.
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by maIanthrop:
That's malanTHROP, not malanTHROPE, you moron.

However it's spelled we've certainly seen the last of him.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
No, I'm not joking. Neither do I think mal was an alt. I think he had alts, and am confident he lied quite extensively about his background, but I believe he was otherwise a legitimate voice.
Well, that makes sense.
I understand "legitimate" in this context to mean "not entirely made up".
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
BlackBlade: Ah. Thanks for explaining.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
You took plenty of potshots at him and you know it =)
Yes. But if you can't see the difference between my shots and, say, Rakeesh's, remind me to introduce you to my friend "Bloody Obvious." [Smile]
That's your alt, right?

and yup but you were taking shots, and people pretty much should have been unless they are complete e-pacifists, which I also respect!
but 1. that can't be enforced universally, and 2. anyone who starts arguing as ridiculously as him is essentially setting the stage for their own ridicule. Given his blatant hypocrisy in regards to victimization and whining, he may — and this is my first straightforward, direct insult to him — suck it and stop wasting our time. My god, I'm so sorry that a potentially long-running career of talking-point gargle, conservative mockery, and thread derailing was cut short.

Goodbye malanthrop!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I give Orincoro a bit more benefit of the doubt when he says things are that are rude because I've come to expect that. When I was new, King of Men completely floored me in threads concerning religion.

See, I understand the need to moderate according to the person's "newness," but honestly, in this case, we're dealing with someone who needed the metaphorical smack in the face for saying some pretty outrageously stupid things. I also knew right away that he was not at all equipped to advocate his position because he hadn't actually been thinking critically about anything he said. In my opinion, and as you know from experience with me, that kind of thing doesn't deserve a great deal of coddling. I've benefited, I think, from some of the verbal smackings I've gotten here, and I feel much more able now then I did before I joined, to consider the implications of the things I say. The community has also helped me at time to moderate my thinking in life, as happened very recently.

Now, I don't really get how anybody would benefit in any way from having him as their alt, which is why I'm not at all convinced he is one, but as Tom said, he *has* alts. I also know that as much as I disagree with many of the conservatives who post here, many of them are smarter and better equipped for this forum. I think if anyone is a candidate for Mal, it would be "GinaG," for sheer obstinacy and naivete, but the tone struck me as pretty different. I think if Mal is anyone real (which he obviously is to some degree, barring his "character" possibility), he's probably very young and weirdly idealistic. I saw echoed in his writing, some of the rhetorical devices I might have felt comfortable using when I was a little younger. There was also the spelling, which is generally a dead giveaway.

Some of this whole, "new-person bursts in and says a bunch of stupid crap, gets offended, and leaves" thing comes down to an unavoidable human cycle. When I left the US, I was nothing more than a tourist. It has taken and will continue to take a lot of work and patience to establish myself in a new place, and feel increasingly comfortable here. But when I get on the tram in the afternoon, after a long day of work, and am subjected as I was yesterday to three vacuous American girls bitching about the fact that they'd been fined for blackriding 5 minutes earlier, when the concept of paying for transportation is not a foreign one, I am quietly annoyed by it. People partly tire of tourists and foreigners because a part of being one is the willingness to plead stupidity and ignorance in many situations, and the lack of willingness to feel responsible to the place they are visiting. That's natural, and It's not surprising, but I think if we were readily willing to accept it, and not to confront it openly, we as a community would be walked over early and often. There needs to be a good middle ground, where inexperience doesn't get people in trouble or earn the ire of others so quickly, but there also needs to be a way of letting people know that pleading ignorance or stupidity, or showing an obvious lack of homework or disciplined reasoning is not acceptable. Everyone here knows that Mal showed little respect for the discussion when he failed, over and over, to engage fully with any of us on any of the many sweeping arguments he attempted to make. We can't expect the kind of respect or understanding we have for and of each other, but we can ask for more than what was forthcoming.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Now, I don't really get how anybody would benefit in any way from having him as their alt
Imagine you are an established member of a forum and you have a lot of views that you've more or less kept to yourself because you're afraid of the backlash of those views and/or because you get in trouble when you argue (either for consistently making bad points, or for being caustic and getting into slugfests).

You would make a smurf alt to let fly your true colors, a new front of maximal anonymity.

Smurf alts are very, very bad. As a mod I am under strict orders to ban every one discovered and reveal the offending smurfer. Altoholics are notorious for hiding behind alts as an attempt for repercussion-free, antagonistic fight-picking in debates. You can pick fights and if opprobrium or bans result from it the idea is that it keeps your main 'safe' from the repercussions of how your alt acted. Often times these same people resort to using their alts to back each other up and create 'popular support'

Hilarious, sure, but disruptive.

I am not saying that the jury's out on whether malanthrop was an alt (though it bears all the hallmarks of Obvious Alt Is Obvious) but just explaining the motivations behind altoholism and smurfing and ... well, why it's considered stupid to not enforce anti-smurf methods.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
Smurf alts are very, very bad
This sounds like some strange variation of Ghostbusters...

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I wish I knew the history behind why smurf became the popular term for, well, a smurf. My best guess is because some people were notorious for creating new personas to have credibility in new discussions — Papa Smurf makes a Handy Smurf to talk with authority in home remodeling affairs, a Grouchy Smurf for fronting attacks against people he doesn't like, an Iraq War Vet Smurf to talk with an I Was There authority about the morality of Bush's war policy, etc .. they all wore different veneer but clever folk would note the prevalent fact that all of them were pretty much the same short blue guy.

By the by, the technique wherein someone makes an alt that poses as an active duty soldier is a surprisingly common tactic, favored by chickenhawks (or was it chicken****s?) and legitimately one of the most fantastically repulsive things I ever see posters do.

Woe betide any who I find smurfing as a soldier/vet to post in war or politics topics.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts. Here's a few stats for you out there who think my views are marginal and on the fringes of society. Still waiting for an example of a government program that has met budget and is succesful.


Fox News Channel is the highest rated Cable News Channel with CNN in 2nd place

Oreilly #1 for 100 months

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mak Levin #1 NY Times, #1 Amazon, #1 Borders Books

76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian

Thirty-eight percent of Americans report having a gun in their homes, and another 2% say they have a gun elsewhere on their properties (like in a garage, barn, or car). The percentage of Americans reporting they have a gun in their homes has hovered around the 40% mark since 2000.

Gay marriage: 57 percent opposed civil unions and 40 percent favored them. Gallup

Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more. Universal Health Care

-- Approval of Congress has dipped below 20% for only the fourth time in the 34 years Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing. Today's 18% score, based on a May 8-11 Gallup Poll, matches the record lows Gallup recorded in August 2007 and March 1992….May 14 2008

Measuring Their Performance
Support for a service does not necessarily mean that it gets high ratings for its performance. In an earlier survey conducted online among 1,833 adults by Harris Interactive between October 11 and 17, 2005, far fewer people gave most services high ratings. For example:
• Medicaid which enjoys the support of 71 percent of all adults is rated 73 percent negative, 27 percent positive.
• Federal aid to public schools which is supported by 69 percent of adults is rated 74 percent negative, 26 percent positive.
• Social Security, which enjoys very strong support (76%) is rated 73 percent negative, 27 percent negative.
• Medicare, also a very popular service (76% support) is rated 73 percent negative, 27 percent positive.
All of the nine services rated in October (the list did not include five of the services included in the November survey), received more negative than positive ratings. Those which had the most positive ratings by the public are: defense (45% positive), foreign aid (44%), and food stamps (33%).

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%). Pew Research Center

Top Radio Programs United States:
#1 Rush
#2 Morning Edition
#3 All Things Considered
#4 Sean Hannity
#5 Michael Savage
#6 Dr Laura
#7 Glenn Beck
#8 Laura Ingraham
#9 Mark Levin
#10 Dave Ramsey

Affirmative Action
Regardless of the wording, all polling on affirmative action shows blacks overwhelmingly support it. In the latest Gallup Poll, 72% of blacks say they favor affirmative action programs, while only 21% are opposed. Among whites, the story is different. Whites are much more divided, with opponents outnumbering supporters by a 49% to 44% margin. The results for both whites and blacks have been consistent over time. Gallup

Immigration:
The general public overwhelmingly favors immigration reform. Poll after poll shows that Americans want well-enforced, sensible, and sustainable immigration laws.

89% of Americans think illegal immigration into the U.S. is a problem (30% "extremely serious," 33% "very serious," and 26% "somewhat serious." (Time Magazine, Jan. 2006)
82% think that not enough is being done along the borders to keep illegal immigrants from crossing into the country. (New York Times/CBS May 2007)
68% feel that the number of immigrants who cross the border, whether legal or illegal is “too high”. (Polling Company, Sept. 2006)
62% oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of America. (Quinnipiac Univ., Feb. 2006)
These are only a few examples of the many statistics demonstrating that Americans want lower immigration, greater enforcement, and more commitment to making immigration work in the best interests of the nation.

MOST RECENT NATIONAL POLLS

A Rasmussen Report Poll conducted November 5, 2008 of 1,000 likely voters asked: "Is the government doing enough to secure the border?"

79% responded "no,"” it is not doing enough.
10% responded "yes."
It also asked, "Which is more important: securing the border or legalizing undocumented workers?"

65% responded that gaining control of the border is more important.
26% responded that legalization is more important.
Rasmussen Report Poll conducted from October 24-25th of 800 likely voters found that:

51% opposed the DREAM Act (a form of amnesty for former and present illegal alien students) concept
68% believe the passage of the bill would encourage more illegal immigration in the future.
71% believe that illegal immigrants should not qualify for in-state tuition rates at colleges and universities.
77 % oppose making drivers' licenses available to illegal immigrants

#1 Music Genre in the United States, Country Music.

YOU'RE BLOGGERS, you don't represent the majority although you may in these rooms.

[ April 07, 2009, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts.

Well that's why conservatives need to be extra vigilant, the enemies got all that extra time on their hands. Luckily they're usually too doped up to remember what they're arguing about. Perhaps legalizing pot really is the solution to the Republicans' problems. I mean, the pinkos would be an even greater burden on society as a result, but at least they'd be too busy thinking about their "munchies" to try and push their anti-Freedom agenda.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts. Here's a few stats for you out there who think my views are marginal and on the fringes of society. Still waiting for an example of a government program that has met budget and is succesful.

I guess I can't provide that to you, given that apparently the necessary reading comprehension to spot the examples already provided can't be taught to you over the internet.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
malanthrop: Thanks for the statistics, leave the animosity at the door.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Could you work more, Malanthrop?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Could you work more, Malanthrop?

I may need to, once I have someone else's health care to pay for.

Just keeping up my false persona as a vet who had reserve duty last weekend. It is really difficult keeping up the charade.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts. Here's a few stats for you out there who think my views are marginal and on the fringes of society. Still waiting for an example of a government program that has met budget and is succesful.

I guess I can't provide that to you, given that apparently the necessary reading comprehension to spot the examples already provided can't be taught to you over the internet.
Since you can't answer and are avoiding the facts, here you go. From the US Government.

"The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains problematic. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current financing arrangements. " Status of Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Administration, 2008
Read the details on the .gov site if you'd like.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Hey lets add another program to the other unsustainable ones.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts. Here's a few stats for you out there who think my views are marginal and on the fringes of society. Still waiting for an example of a government program that has met budget and is succesful.

I guess I can't provide that to you, given that apparently the necessary reading comprehension to spot the examples already provided can't be taught to you over the internet.
Since you can't answer and are avoiding the facts, here you go. From the US Government.

"The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains problematic. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current financing arrangements. " Status of Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Administration, 2008
Read the details on the .gov site if you'd like.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Hey lets add another program to the other unsustainable ones.

Please stop saying that those who favor socialized health care don't have jobs, it's very rude and untrue.

What do you think the solution is then for social security and medicare since both appear to be underfunded. Is it impossible to find a way to make them solvent? I'd pay a little bit more social security taxes if I knew it would secure that program for myself in the future.

I think scuttling both programs would be a massive mistake of tremendous import.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
When I worked at a warehouse, getting health care was very hard. I believe they could put it off for 2 years of working full time. I imagine a lot of those employees would be interested in socialized health care. And for that matter, so would the employers.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I may need to, once I have someone else's health care to pay for.

Just keeping up my false persona as a vet who had reserve duty last weekend. It is really difficult keeping up the charade.

You're already paying for other people's health care. A terrible state of affairs, I know. One wonders how you can scrape together two nickels to feed your family in the face of the evils of liberal government stripping you to the bone.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
When I worked at a warehouse, getting health care was very hard. I believe they could put it off for 2 years of working full time.
That's assuming of course that the employer doesn't restrict employee hours to just a bit below full-time...a prospect that's a lot easier right now in this all-the-Democrats'-fault economic climate.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Rakeesh, it was amazing how many people worked 36 hours a week there. One of my friends is still working at a warehouse and her boss said that maybe next month she might start getting those extra 4 hours. She is very, very excited at the idea.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
"How Social Security was Created and Stolen‏
If after you read this you don’t get that you will be facing more taxes and the elimination of the tax breaks you currently receive if you vote incorrectly in the next election, you probably deserve to lose more of your social security, most of your 401k when you withdraw it and any estate inheritance from your parents or grandparents…that is if they don’t lose all their savings after getting taxed further. Additional and increased taxes will be hurting everyone on social security now and in the future.

Don’t forget to read the last paragraph….Thomas Jefferson said it right!

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “Put Away” — you may be interested in the following:

Dwight David Eisenhower

34th. President, Republican,

Term of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961

Insert by Vincent Peter Render,

If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. And if I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress. From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for. Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat, Term of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969.

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.

Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.

William Jefferson Clinton

Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore), 45th. Vice President

Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as

President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .

James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter), 39th. President, Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981

Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?

Answer: That’s right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so. But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

Thomas Jefferson

3rd. President, Democrat

Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

- Thomas Jefferson"

http://help.com/post/188662-how-social-security-was-created-and

[ April 08, 2009, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Gadzooks! Those dratted Democrats. I'm so angry at them I've forgotten you didn't respond to any statements made against your arguments!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Mal, I can't quite understand your chart. Maybe it's the formatting, but it looks like you've got something like 253% of people making over $100,000 reporting.

Not, of course, that we should be surprised that people who work more hours -- or claim to -- make more money, or pretend for a moment that "working" 80 hours as a middle manager is equivalent to working 30 hours as a stockboy.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Tom,

I went back and checked the data and removed it from my original entry. It was a .gov but not a US.gov site. Thanks.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Gadzooks! Those dratted Democrats. I'm so angry at them I've forgotten you didn't respond to any statements made against your arguments!

I'm not quite sure how I've failed to respond. I've demonstrated the failure of the largest government social programs we currently have. You have failed to provide examples of successful ones.

I'm illustrating how the costs are always much higher and sold at a severely underestimated level. SS was 1% tax, now it's 6.5% for employee and employer, or 13% of each income. You may be willing to pay more but more is never enough. Over time it's the same old arguments. It's a small increase, another small increase and another, followed by another. You're greedy if you are opposed to another slight increase. I'm still waiting for the toll to pay for a bridge to go away, never does. Now the bridge needs maintenance.

The average American works until April 13th to pay taxes. Maybe we should push it up to June, make it a nice even 50/50. 6 months for the government and other people and 6 months for my family. There must be a line drawn somewhere. The government can't provide everything. Anything they promise costs more than they sell.


TARP - never went to buy troubled assets as pushed by legislature.

They raise a specific tax for a shortfall just to return money to the general fund.

IE raise cigarette taxes to help pay for medical care, reduce medical care budget by that amount. Shortfall still exists. Lottory's passed to help pay for school shortfalls, lotto revenues only offset school spending rather than increase it. Social security, was solvent but they couldn't keep there hands off of it. Moved the money into the general fund creating this problem.

Here's an example that is near and dear. Military bases are not allowed to charge sales tax so they have a 5% "surcharge" instead. Not a tax, right?

Social security is "voluntary" yet if you choose not to participate you can't work or go to school. Your choice though.

I posted this one earlier:
"The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html

They stand up there and talk about the greedy Big Oil????? How about Big Government.

Between 1985 and 2007, real federal spending on K-12 education programs has increased by 138 percent. Has education improved?

When the federal government starts taxing cattle for farts and dictates what kind of lightbulb you can have or how many gallons your toilet can flush, we've gone too far.

You are the boiling toad.

ce she does, I'll go out and finance a jet ski.

[ April 08, 2009, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The problem with the American people, is that if the government didn't regulate lightbulb wattage or appliance efficiency, in the next couple decades we'd be in a world of hurt, and we'd wonder why the government didn't save us when it had the chance.

We're an extremely short sighted people en masse. Water shortages are rampant around the world, but we've mostly technologied our way out of that particular problem (with some massive exceptions), but it's only becoming more acute here at home as time marches on, and as our horrible mismanagement of water resources starts to dawn on us. With the exception of the Great Lakes states, most of the United States is going to deal with water shortage issues in the coming years (and no, you can't have our water). That means choosing between water for your toilet or water for a nuclear power plant, between irrigating a farm, and running a factory. Places like SoCal are already dealing with this issue in more realistic terms, and have instituted water rationing and are considering vast spending amounts to build desalization plants even as they enact strict measures against overusage of water. They can't control mountain snowmelt runoff, but they can control local water use to a degree. What does that get you? Restrictions on the volume of water that can be used per flush. You'd prefer to be wasteful at the expense of both the greater good and your own personal good. You can use the water up now, but that means neither the low or high flow toilets will work in the future.

And lightbulbs of course. The legislation that calls for regulation of bulbs doesn't actually dictate the bulb you can buy, it just mandates that they meet a certain level of efficiency. Your choice will still be plentiful, and in many cases, you probably won't even notice the difference except for a higher up front cost, but lower lifetime coast.

Curse that blasted government! Trying to ensure longterm prosperity and access to the most important natural resource on the planet (water) and trying to ensure a stable energy supply for the future! When will the tyranny end?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Maybe we're in a world of hurt because we haven't built a nuclear reactor in decades. We can't drill for oil and we haven't built one refinery in 30 years. I remember the rolling blackouts in California. Good thing Washington State was there to pipe juice into their 30 year old power generation system.

As far as light bulbs are concerned they are outlawing incandescent bulbs. You may as well say they aren't making electric cars the law of the land, just mandating cars get at least 75 mpg. (I don't have any incandescents left in my house by the way, by choice) Kinda like: social security is optional? You choose to participate. Choose not to and you can't work or get an education. It's a choice though.

Places like So Cal can have restrictions. I'm a states rights believer. If a state wants to regulate, let them. Speaking of Cali, say goodby to big screen tv's and get ready for govt controlled thermostats. Federal govt has no business in this. If a state wants gay marriage, good. I could live in a different state. If Oregon wants universal health care and you want it, move there, if not move away. This is the beauty of states rights. Our system of government was designed to operate this way. If not specifically enumerated in the constitution it is left to the states and to the people. The Fed has no business micromanaging our laws and communities.

Tax increases are almost always justified with threats of a reduction in necessary services. The gov budget is tight and they scare the public into agreeing. It's always: we're going to have to cut the police, paramedics, firemen and teachers. Talk about irresponsibility? What about the govt beurocrats that outnumber the police? Never a threat that they are going to have to cut a beurocrat's job.

I'll try the same trick with my wife. Maybe I should tell her to put in a few extra hours to contribute more towards the mortgage. Once she does, I go buy a jet ski.

I'm enjoying my $15 a week tax cut, thank you Mr. President. His green initiative tax increases will more than wipe that out though. The greatest shell game players of all. When he runs for reelection he'll brag about his tax cut while his believers wonder why their money doesn't seem to go as far.

[ April 08, 2009, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
For the record, everything in America is dirt cheap because of the low taxes. But people in places with higher taxes still get by and they still get rich--they just buy less crap.

Think, for example, how much richer the average reasonably well-off young person would be if they didn't buy alcohol except on special occasions. An alcoholic drink, let's say, is $5. Multiply that by two a week and that's a month's rent down the drain (literally!) in a year.

What about clothes? I expect the average woman spends about the same on clothes, if not significantly more, every year. Another month's rent.

Electricity. With efficient (and smaller) building construction, fans and turning the air-conditioning up to bearable instead of really freaking cold, most companies would probably save good portion of their taxes

The average family goes out to dinner maybe, let's say, once every two weeks (some seems to go almost every night, others less). Dinner for family or four or five out, thinking frugally: $60, Dinner for family of four or five at home: $30 and that's eating well.

Television. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for hundreds of channels which show almost nothing. Cancel the TV and rent DVDs and all of a sudden you're saving hundreds of dollars.

Cars. Keep that car one year longer or give your kids an old car rather than a new one. Instead of going through ten cars in your life time, you go through nine. Savings of the price of a car!

And this isn't really living terribly poorly. You can still buy your big screen TVs and your computers. You can still eat extremely well. You can still dress extremely well. You don't have to turn the air-conditioning off entirely. You don't have to go without alcoholic drinks.

Some people live like this and I think with all this stuff put together you can save thousands of dollars a year. Enough to pay those extra taxes or save up for that slightly more efficient vehicle.

Many Westerners live like Kings not in the sense that they live well but in the sense that they live better than well. They (We), like Kings in a different era, rely on the rest of the world living less than well in order to maintain their living standard. We haven't grown out of a feudal order, we've just outsourced it.

And that is where the government comes in. If the government mandates standards on fuel efficiency, they are forcing us to consume less fuel (although we may pay the cost in the initial purchase). When they mandate we use more efficient bulbs, they are saving us paying electricity bills. And this is on top of the usage of fuel anyway. Every bit of fuel that doesn't get used is not only saved on the cost to get it out the ground and ship it to your powerstation or car, but it also means it's there for somebody else to use later on down the line. Triple win!

It's mandated because the vast majority of people do not save on their own.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Kinda like: social security is optional? You choose to participate. Choose not to and you can't work or get an education. It's a choice though.
I bet you think there should be consequences to not registering for the selective service. Don't you?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Please stop saying that those who favor socialized health care don't have jobs, it's very rude and untrue.
Indeed. I support a single-payer system though I currently have one of the best employer-paid private health plans in the world. I don't pay any premiums nor do I pay single cent out of pocket for any medical procedures or prescriptions. There are unlimited mental health benefits and even many "elective" procedures like fertility treatments are fully covered.

While my situation is great, I still think that as a nation our healthcare system is embarrasing by western standards in its overall cost and availability measured against outcomes.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
You know what I'm having fun doing?

I'm googling specific chunks of malanthrop's posts and finding out which websites and chain e-mails they've been copied from.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Teshi, there's one problem with that logic: the American economy is currently predicated on our willingness to spend more than we can afford on disposable gadgets and optional services. If we start cutting back on these things, we start losing jobs.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Teshi, there's one problem with that logic: the American economy is currently predicated on our willingness to spend more than we can afford on disposable gadgets and optional services. If we start cutting back on these things, we start losing jobs.

But that can't mean that we shouldn't cut back, right?

From my limited experience with these things, I see it from two points of view. The first I guess I would call bottom up. Workers have rights, people have a right to make money to sustain themselves, etc. I don't think many people are actively trying to prevent people from working, or actively declaring that people don't have the right to make money for sustenance.

On the other hand, the top down, large portions of our system are broken. The transportation sector is spewing greenhouse gases, air pollutants, causes asthma, guzzles foreign oil, etc. Our agricultural system, for the most part, is dependent on synthetic fertilizers, large amounts of pesticides and herbicides, and is sucking many of our aquifers dry, the Colorado River no longer ends, and there is a ginormous dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from the fertilizer and agricultural runoff. I don't think that there are many people who would declare these to be negligible problems.

And somewhere in the middle, the top-down and bottom-up meet. Somewhere in there the rights of workers and the need to address these large scale problems are clashing. I tend to be more concerned with the large scale problems, and that's partly due to the fact that it's some of those large scale problems that I study and spend my days researching.

I don't want to force an automobile worker into unemployment and declare that it's for the good of our planet, but I also don't want to reject sound and sustainable policy because some of our population currently earns money from producing Hummers.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
From malanthrop:
Maybe we're in a world of hurt because we haven't built a nuclear reactor in decades. We can't drill for oil and we haven't built one refinery in 30 years. I remember the rolling blackouts in California. Good thing Washington State was there to pipe juice into their 30 year old power generation system.

As far as light bulbs are concerned they are outlawing incandescent bulbs. You may as well say they aren't making electric cars the law of the land, just mandating cars get at least 75 mpg. (I don't have any incandescents left in my house by the way, by choice) Kinda like: social security is optional? You choose to participate. Choose not to and you can't work or get an education. It's a choice though.

I don't see why not having built a nuclear reactor in decades is the sole reason for us being on the teetering point of big problems. We've built considerably extra electric generating capacity using other sources of energy, and despite the high cost and long build time, nuclear power will soon make a come back.

Also, I love it when people point out that no new refineries have been built in decades, and ignore the fact that refining capacity has increased by leaps and bounds because existing refineries have dramatically scaled up their own production capabilities to meet demand. Bad malanthrop.

And no, they aren't outlawing incandescents. There are still many numerous kinds of incandescents that are exempted in the efficiency bill that was passed, and GE at least, maybe Phillips too, are working on and plan to bring to market high efficiency incandescents by the time the bill actually comes into force that will meet the standards of the bill and still be the same incandescents that you've always known and loved. The result? You get to keep your same bulb, but there's a net gain both for you personally and the nation as a whole.

I'm not pretending any of these things are optional, I'm arguing that the government is acting as a preventative force for the general welfare of the nation, over the objections of a short sighted few that want to keep doing things the same old way, not realizing or caring that the old way is highly unsustainable will lead to eventual ruin.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
Teshi, there's one problem with that logic: the American economy is currently predicated on our willingness to spend more than we can afford on disposable gadgets and optional services. If we start cutting back on these things, we start losing jobs.
What the White Whale said. I realise there are economic issues. Every time I don't buy something, I prevent someone from being employed. However, it doesn't actually make me want to buy more stuff just to support people because I don't have lots of extra money anyway.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm not pretending any of these things are optional, I'm arguing that the government is acting as a preventative force for the general welfare of the nation, over the objections of a short sighted few that want to keep doing things the same old way, not realizing or caring that the old way is highly unsustainable will lead to eventual ruin.

Huzzah!
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
It seems to me that China's economy is predicated on American willingness to spend on disposable gadgets.

Oddly enough, it appears that America's economy is predicated on American willingness to play games with pieces of paper in order to create the appearance of it being a good idea to borrow in order to spend on those aforementioned gadgets (while taking a big vig on those games).
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I would imagine that at least some of the wind taken from the Chinese economy's sails won't ever return. Large sectors of their economy ARE based on selling crap to Americans, and as Americans realize their own lack of ability to buy said crap, the Chinese will have to shutter factories due to reduced demand. It's not like they can turn around and sell it to Europe, they're in even worse shape than we are.

I've already read articles about closed factories and angry workers demanding jobs. I don't think the global economic downturn will be enough to seriously destabilize the Chinese government or anything, but I do think the ripple effects are clear.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Yep.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Force GE to make more efficienct incandescents? I suppose you're one of those guys who believes the oil companies bought up all the patents for the 100mpg carburators that have been designed. You can't legislate away the laws of physics.

Of course refining capacity has gone up, we are more technologically advanced. We are much more efficient and a much cleaner society as well.

Convenient no one wants to discuss the government has made more money from oil than the oil companies.

Still waiting for the examples of successful government social programs. I've demonstrated the failure of the one's we have and you argue for more.

The government isn't inherently evil or bad. Government programs are full of fraud because people are inherently greedy. If it's being paid for by the govt, people will take full advantage and beyond. Bill medicare for unnecessary services. I know elderly who go to the doctor every single week, not for any particular reason but it makes them feel better and the doctor is more than happy to bill the government for their "checkup" where they just chit chat. Milk the contracts to the bitter end. Apply for every social welfare program, able bodied or not. My daughter's school offers free breakfast and lunch, some kids need it but they don't bother to check who does. My kids could get it, just get in line without money. My brother in law has recieved Soccial Security benefits since he was 19 (SSI) because my in laws got a good lawyer and he's a drug addict who can't hold a job. It's not the government's fault but when it comes to government money, it's freeby time.

The govt pays for commercials on tv and radio to advertise welfare and foodstamps where I live. Are they serious? Is it a program of need or are they encouraging people to get on the tit. Why not, the school gets extra money for every kid who gets free lunch. The city gets federal dollars for each welfare recipient. If you don't spend every cent in your budget in govt, they reduce your budget. Budgets in any industry fluctuate up and down, in government, they normally only go up. I've been there, "It's the end of the quarter and we have $60k left. Break out Fed Log and start ordering stuff." All agencies work this way in the gov.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Actually, GE was going to make them anyway. They'd already phased out their regular incandescent division before the law was even passed to focus on CFLs, but had long planned to bring HEIs to market as an interim move because people are hesitant to buy CFLs and because LEDs for residential use aren't really close to large scale application yet. That thing about the oil companies and the thing about the laws of physics are non-sequitors as far as I can tell, unless you want to explain the linkage.

Technological advancement has something to do with it, yes, but it's also the physical act of adding more machinery and what not onto existing plants to increase capacity. It's more like saying a distillery has added additional vats to increase whiskey production rather than saying they've become more adept at creating the whiskey in the vats they already have. And by the way, the only reason we're a cleaner and more efficient society is because government (generally at the insistence of liberals) has forced industry to do so. They figured it out. They got over it. They profited from it. And we all benefit from it as a society.

Social Security when it was first enacted by the way lifted tens of thousands of the elderly out of poverty. It was an immediate success that has since reached critical mass less because of the system than because of the political problems that make fixing it untenable. The retirement age will have to be raised, and the benefits will have to be reduced. There's no way around it, and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be, but there's nothing inherently wrong with social security. If only the youth of this nation could organize into a lobbying group like the old people did with AARP, I think SS reform would move along a heck of a lot faster. That and a lot of things. It's amazing how lazy we can be as a demographic when it REALLY matters, and how up in arms we can get about crap that I couldn't care less about.

Single payer universal health care, by the way, is probably the most appropriate example of a government social program that works successfully for the betterment of the society at large. Oh wait, has that been mentioned?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Kinda like: social security is optional? You choose to participate. Choose not to and you can't work or get an education. It's a choice though.
I bet you think there should be consequences to not registering for the selective service. Don't you?
There are, if you ever plan to apply for federal student aid.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Yes, I'm aware of that. I just surmise that Mal is in favor of those consequences.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Huh. You learn something new everyday. Never knew that (selective service) was still going on.

Huh. And male only too.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Yes, I'm aware of that. I just surmise that Mal is in favor of those consequences.

Suprised you would think that. When's the last time we needed a draft? There are plenty of volunteers. Unless you believe the military is a place for the desperate, stupid and minorities who are being victimized for their position in life.

Social security was a great idea. The money I pay in would make a much better retirement and the money the elderly already paid in would've been so for them, had they left it alone.

No debate on my position about government spending huh? No examples of good programs? Blah, blah, blah. You want more but you can't deny the failure of the ones in existence. Lucy, Charlie and the football.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Lucy, Charlie and the football.
This is accurate, but not in the way it's stated literally:)
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
No debate on my position about government spending huh? No examples of good programs? Blah, blah, blah. You want more but you can't deny the failure of the ones in existence.
Usually in a debate, or even a decent, working discussion, you have to consider the points the opposition makes before flatly rejecting them. I guess your way is easier.

But it's also neither discussing nor debating. It's talking to yourself.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
No debate on my position about government spending huh?

Let's point to a random poster such as, oh, say .. the rabbit.

One might cleverly note the substance behind those post(s) which constitute an attempt at debating your position on government spending.

One might even go so far as to note that others, such as myself, have offered plenty, only to have it be roundly rejected by you based on epic goalpoast-shifting, then relegated to the status of never-have-existing.

To deny the validity of these arguments is one thing; to deny that they exist and have been provided to you reveals your lack of willingness or ability to comprehend.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Let me go back a couple pages and respond to the "random" poster since none of the regulars are capable on their own.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
A half dozen of the regulars have responded to you, repeatedly. But when you can't find a good rebuttal for arguments, you ignore them, change the subject and attack peoples character and patriotism. Then you wait for the page to change and pretend none of it ever happened.

You are either too stupid to recognize a rebuttal when you read one, so demented you can't remember what was said from one day to the next or so naive you think a page change can cover an obvious lie.

You aren't worth our time.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
My opinions are in no way ucommon. The majority of the people I know, neighbors, coworkers, freinds and family are on the same page as I. It may be uncommon for my opinions to be expressed in this forum and to be sure, there are forums where I would fit right in, as you do here. You don't seek to be challenged or debated you only seek affirmation of your beliefs or challenges in minutia.
Actually there is far more diversity of opinion here than most of the forums out there.

Furthermore, the question wasn't about your opinions in general but about a specific opinion -- one which has a quantitative answer. That specific question was the belief that health insurance could possibly be cheaper than any common combination of TV, cell phone and internet use.

Like I said that question has a quantitative answer. In the US, the average per capita health care expenditure is $5,711. So the average cost of insurance for a family of 4, should come out to $22,544, or about $1900/month. The cost of private insurance is almost certainly much lower than that (around half I believe) but that is because public insurance (medicare) pays for the oldest and most expensive segment of the population.

In Finland (the OECD country with the cheapest health care), the average annual per capita health care cost is $2,104 or $8,416 for a family of four or about $700/month. Its unreasonable to expect that a family would be able to get reasonable insurance coverage for less than that in any developed country. How families do you know who spend more than $700/month on cell phones, cable and internet? I don't know any.

You are mixing numbers. The average per capita expenditure includes employee and employer contributions. You are pretending the total cost is on the employee.

I'm partial to US Government Census statitics:
They aren't pushing an agenda and are quite quantitative.
Based on National Compensation Survey, a sample survey of 12,821 private industry establishments of all sizes, representing about 108 million workers;
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0150.pdf

Average employee monthly contribution family $312
Average employer contribution 87%

A bit off of your statistic but if you'd like to argue with the US census bureau, go ahead.

Coincidentally, that's just about what health care for my family costs and equivalent to my cell phone, tv and internet (maybe I'll have to skip starbucks a couple times a month to make up the difference) Honestly, my utilities in Florida cost more, drill baby drill. [Smile]

The topic really isn't about the workers contribution to health care but health care for EVERYONE. Of course if you an unskilled drop out working at a fast food restaurant, you probably aren't going to be offered health care. There is one option, you could work for Wal Mart and get benefits though:
http://walmartstores.com/download/2320.pdf

Employer contribution is the key, that is if you are an employee somewhere. The agenda pushers quote "total cost", disregarding the employer contributions to that cost then count in the "uninsured" category the people who choose not to have the insurance and illegal aliens. Sure there are people who are in need, those people deserve it but don't twist the numbers for your agenda. I didn't "choose" an insurance plan until I was married. "The sky is falling" works great. What happened to the starving children and the millions of homeless angle during the Clinton years? I suppose that one is old hat now.

Here's another interesting statistic, 5% of of our population accounts for 49% of our health care costs. Maybe we should just start putting old people to sleep like our dogs. It would be best for all society that way; save health care costs for truly needy people. I heard it suggested we should take plastic surgery money away from rich people too, great ideas fellas. We should have a health care tax for every pound a person is overwhieght due to their burdon on the health care industry, worked for smokers. The needs of the many, Mr. Spock. [Smile]

[ April 09, 2009, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
You are mixing numbers. The average per capita expenditure includes employee and employer contributions. You are pretending the total cost is on the employee.

I was referring to the question posed by shigoshi

quote:
Hey, I was wondering...does anyone besides Malanthrop believe that the cost of health insurance (the full cost, not partially paid for by an employer) could possibly be less than any amount of cell phone, TV, and internet services that a normal person would use?
So yes, I was talking about the total cost, not just the cost to the employee -- that was the question presented. Furthermore, its stupid to pretend that the employers contribution isn't a cost to the employee. That is part of the employees compensation package. The employee receives that in exchange for his/her work. If health care were less expensive, the employee could demand a higher salary.

quote:
quote:
I'm partial to US Government Census statitics:
They aren't pushing an agenda and are quite quantitative.
Based on National Compensation Survey, a sample survey of 12,821 private industry establishments of all sizes, representing about 108 million workers;
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0150.pdf

Average employee monthly contribution family $312
Average employer contribution 87%

A bit off of your statistic but if you'd like to argue with the US census bureau, go ahead.

They don't disagree with my statistics at all since the US census bureau is reporting average employee monthly contribution per family and the question posed was specifically "the full cost", including what is paid for by the employer.

Based on the US census statistics you quote, employers are on average covering 87% of the cost. Using the average employee contribution, that suggest that the full cost per month is $2400/family. That is higher than the estimate I came up with, likely because most employers cover a smaller percent of the insurance for families than for individuals. Kaiser foundation studies suggest employers pay about 80% of the insurance costs for familes, which would make a total of ~$1600/month. Those numbers bracket the estimate I made using average per capita health care costs which isn't bad consider all the ill founded assumption underlying all the calculations.

quote:
Coincidentally, that's just about what health care for my family costs and equivalent to my cell phone, tv and internet (maybe I'll have to skip starbucks a couple times a month to make up the difference) Honestly, my utilities in Florida cost more, drill baby drill. [Smile]
Once again, the question wasn't about your cost, it was about the combined cost to you and your employer. Are you paying the full cost of your health insurance or does your employer actually pay 80% or more?

quote:
The topic really isn't about the workers contribution to health care but health care for EVERYONE.
You got that right. You are the only one talking solely about the employee contribution, everyone else is talking about total cost.

quote:
Of course if you an unskilled drop out working at a fast food restaurant, you probably aren't going to be offered health care. There is one option, you could work for Wal Mart and get benefits though:
http://walmartstores.com/download/2320.pdf

Employer contribution is the key, that is if you are an employee somewhere. The agenda pushers quote "total cost", disregarding the employer contributions to that cost then count in the "uninsured" category the people who choose not to have the insurance and illegal aliens.

Yes, the agenda pushers push "total cost" because that is the real cost. Very few of the uninsured are people who are opting out of an employee health plan because they don't want to pay their 13% of the total cost. Most small business don't offer health insurance benefits, people who are self employed don't get an "employer contribution". As the cost of health care skyrockets, more and more employers are dropping health insurance benefits. Funny you should mention Walmart, one of their standard practices is to employ people for 35 hours/week to save the cost of health care benefits they give to 36 hr/week employees.

Furthermore, the high cost of health insurance in the US, makes it difficult for US employers to compete with companies in Canada and Europe where the cost of health benefits is half what it in the US. So this isn't just about individuals and families, its also about businesses. That is one of the reasons that so many companies have started pushing the "agenda".

Insurance companies offer discounts to big businesses that small businesses and individuals can't get. People who are considered "high risk" by insurance companies, generally cannot get insurance unless they work for a large employer. Drs bills are substantially higher if you are uninsured. I personally have several friends who closed their small business and gone to work for a large business in order to get insurance. I know several more who would quit their jobs and start a small business if they could get affordable health care.

According to the Kaiser foundation, in 2007 66.7% of uninsured population are full time full year legal workers.

quote:
Sure there are people who are in need, those people deserve it but don't twist the numbers for your agenda.
You are the one who is twisting the numbers for your agenda. Using only the "employee contribution" accounts only for the very small fraction of uninsured people who opt out of their employers insurance plan. It doesn't account for the overwhelming majority of uninsured families who work but whose employers don't offer health benefits.

[ April 09, 2009, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

Social Security when it was first enacted by the way lifted tens of thousands of the elderly out of poverty. It was an immediate success that has since reached critical mass less because of the system than because of the political problems that make fixing it untenable. The retirement age will have to be raised, and the benefits will have to be reduced. There's no way around it, and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be, but there's nothing inherently wrong with social security. If only the youth of this nation could organize into a lobbying group like the old people did with AARP, I think SS reform would move along a heck of a lot faster. That and a lot of things. It's amazing how lazy we can be as a demographic when it REALLY matters, and how up in arms we can get about crap that I couldn't care less about.


What about raising the cap as part of that solution?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Yes, raising the cap needs to be added as part of that solution.

Its worth noting that the percentage of adults expected to live to retirement age has increased significantly and the average number of years people live once they reach age 65 has increased significantly. Add to that the fact the people tend to be older when they enter the work force, and what you see is that raising the retirement is almost unavoidable. A society simply can't continue to thrive with the average person working a smaller and smaller percentage of their life.

But overall, the problems with social security have been greatly overblown for political reasons. Gradually raising the retirement age to 68 over the next 20 years will virtually eliminate any solvency problems. What it won't fix is the fact that social security has a much lower rate of return than nearly all other pension plans, which is I think the real source of dissatisfaction with social security and one of the reasons that no one is too concerned about it right now. (Aren't you glad we didn't listen to Bush and put SS in the stock market in 2005? )

There are also some hidden agendas behind social security reform. There are those on Wall Street who stand (or stood) to reap massive profits from the privatization of SS. And then there is the fact that the government has been borrowing money from the SS fund since the Reagan years. When that debt come due, there will be hell to pay and many politicians are looking for a way to avoid responsibility for that particular mess.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... Aren't you glad we didn't listen to Bush and put SS in the stock market in 2005?

Kinda depends on how you approach it.

YTD, Canada's pension plan still has a four year annualized rate of return of 3.5% with 57% of its holdings in the stock market.
http://www.cppib.ca/Results/Financial_Highlights/

But I suspect that Bush's approach was not so great.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Since you've considered employers cost in the true cost to the employee I'll follow you down that road.

Self employed individual pays the full amount (no matching funds) of social security and medicare.

Social Security 15.3%
Medicare 5.2%

This doesn't include income tax.

So >20% of one's income is directed to the federal social programs we already have in place, and they are miserable failures, "unsustainable" according to the social security administration.

This doesn't include taxes on income, luxury, sales, gas, cars, etc etc.

There is a limit to the burdon that can be placed on the productive members of our society.
Do you honestly think a hard working American should work half the year just for taxes?

Social security funds were tapped long before the Reagan years but and all administrations have continued with the general fund shell game.

I am sympathetic to the plight and understand the good intentions here. Someone has to pay for octamom's kids and I feel bad for people in third world countries. There will never be a perfect utopia.

I remember making 25k a year with a wife and two kids. Paying in $200 to income tax and getting a return of $6900. Maybe the poor should use that fat redistributive tax return to buy insurance instead of big screens, etc.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Average employee monthly contribution family $312
Average employer contribution 87%

I double checked this at the US census bureau site. here is the link The report is definitely worth reading and has some interesting stats.

First off, 87% is not the average employer contribution. 87% is the percentage of employees that are required to pay part of the health insurance premiums for their families. In other words, only 13% of families receive health insurance that is paid for in full by their employer.

On average, employees paid 19 percent of the medical care premium for single coverage and 29 percent of the premium for family coverage. The brings that average total premium for a family to around $1095/month. The average is certainly higher for those who must get insurance independently.

(P.S. I find that number eerily close to my crude estimate that private insurance was running at around half of the average per capita health care cost)

Also of note in the census bureau link above, are statistics about the percentage of employees who receive health care benefits.

71% of workers in private industry have access to medical care through their employers and about 52% actually receive benefits. So 48% of private industry workers are not receiving medical benefits. Of those who do not receive medical benefits, 40% opt out of employer benefits and 60% have no access to employer benefits.

Its worth noting that only a portion of those who do not receive medical benefits through their employer are uninsured. Many people who opt out of their employers plan, do so because they get medical benefits through their spouses employer. The same is true for many workers who have no access to medical benefits.

I'd be very interested to see what fraction of the uninsured have access to an employer subsidized health care plan but choose not to participate. I suspect that number is fairly low and is made up primarily of single men in their twenties but that is just a guess. I'm sure there are many families living just above the poverty level for whom $300/month is significant financial burden and who have to choose between paying the rent or paying for medical insurance.

Bottom line, 6 out of 10 workers who don't get medical benefits, don't have the option and would have to pay 100% of the insurance cost rather than 29% of the insurance costs. Chance are this group make up far more than 60% of uninsured workers.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Self employed individual pays the full amount (no matching funds) of social security and medicare.

Social Security 15.3%
Medicare 5.2%

This doesn't include income tax.

Actually, this is an over simplification. A self employed person pays 15.3% self employment tax (12.4% SS and 2.9% medicare). But that is 15.3% of 92.65% of net earnings from self employment not form 100% of gross earning. A person who is not self employed pays 7.65% of gross (before tax) income and their employer pays and additional 7.65%. It comes out exactly the same.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And that is only on the first $100,000 or so. Even moderately wealthy people - say a full professor at a major university, not even a CEO - pay a smaller percent when you look at their total income, yes?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Self employed individual pays the full amount (no matching funds) of social security and medicare.

Social Security 15.3%
Medicare 5.2%

This doesn't include income tax.

Actually, this is an over simplification. A self employed person pays 15.3% self employment tax (12.4% SS and 2.9% medicare). But that is 15.3% of 92.65% of net earnings from self employment not form 100% of gross earning. A person who is not self employed pays 7.65% of gross (before tax) income and their employer pays and additional 7.65%. It comes out exactly the same.
Precisely my point. If you want to use employer contribution to health care as a cost of health care to the employee then you must accept employer contribution to taxes as a tax on the employee. Also, I agree it's in "before tax" dollars due to the fact it is a tax.

Think about this, 80+ % of your medical premiums are willingly paid for by the employer. Wow, free market at work and the government didn't have to force them to pay it like SS or Med.

You are also neglecting to mention that the most needy in our society already have government health care. SCHIP covers children and Medicare/Medicaid covers the elderly. If you are an able bodied working adult, you're on your own. Buy your own health care, census data shows, it's cheap. Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time. It would've cut into my beer money.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
80% of some of the population's medical premiums, generally a more healthy proportion of the population than the uninsured, yet for some reason they're less healthy, less satisfied, and there's greater cost than in countries where there's universal healthcare (particularly when that's done with single-payer health insurance).
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
So >20% of one's income is directed to the federal social programs we already have in place, and they are miserable failures, "unsustainable" according to the social security administration.
Once again, when you are loosing one argument, you switch to another. Its really rather grating.

Its odd to describe social security as a miserable failure. Social Security has been incredibly effective at lifting the elderly out of poverty. Prior to SS, 50% of the elderly lived below the poverty line now that number is less than 12%. Recent studies have found that without SS income, 50% of the population would still be living below the poverty line. I call that a successful program. Its not with out problems and we should always be looking for ways to do it more efficiently, but it is undeniably very successful.

According to the SS administration, even with no changes whatsoever, Social Security will be solvent through 2041. I know of no other pension fund (private or public) that can make the same claim. Remember, SS is indexed to inflation and guarantees certain payments, how many pension plans will do that?

The problems with Social Security don't lie in the Social Security program per se. All developed countries are facing similar problems. These problem are the result of changing demographics not a particular program. People are living longer and having fewer children and that means that in the future an increasingly small fraction of the population will be workers. It doesn't matter how you design a pension plan. Retirees don't simply need money, they need goods and services and someone will have to work to provide those goods and services. No matter how you dress it up, having a smaller fraction of the population of working age means those workers will have to produce more goods and services to meet the needs of everyone. There really is no way to fix this problem without either raising the retirement age, increasing the birth rate or promoting immigration from areas of the world where the birth rates are still high.

Or if you prefer looking at it from a different angle. If the average worker, works for 40 years and is then retired for 10 years, the worker will have to produce and save 20% more than he consumes every year that he/she works in order to be able to consume at the same rate after he/she retires. If the worker spends 40 years working and 20 year retired, he/she she will have to produce 33% more than he consumes while he/she is working to cover his/her retirement.


Peoples expectations on this are rather unrealistic. Do people really think its sensible to expect that they can enter the work force at a higher age than their grandparents did, retire at the same age their grandparents did, and then live 10 years longer than their grandparents did and have it balance out?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time.

Yeah, a couple of my former neighbors "chose" not to buy health insurance, but they could have "chosen" to if they also "chose" not to feed their children or pay rent.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
If you are an able bodied working adult, you're on your own. Buy your own health care, census data shows, it's cheap. Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time. It would've cut into my beer money.
No my own health care census data shows the real cost of the average employee sponsored health care plan is around $13,000 per year for a family. Furthemore, 29% of able bodied working adults do not have access to what you call "cheap" health care. For that 29% of the able bodied working population the average insurance premium for a family (which in this case is a low estimate since private individuals pay more for insurance than companies) is over $12,500 dollars per year. That is more than 25% of the US median income For a family that is earning $25,000 a year (which puts them above the poverty level and so unable to get medicaid) that is half their income. Even if that $25,000 year family is lucky enough to have health care from an employer, it will on the average cost them $3,600/year, or 14.4% of their gross income. That's a pretty sizable chunk for a family scraping by at near the poverty level. The cost of health insurance in the US is also twice what full coverage health insurance would cost in any other developed country. My data explicitly disproves your claims that of cheap health care.

quote:
Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time. It would've cut into my beer money.
I thought you were in the military when you were a single young man. Last time I heard, the military still provided health coverage for its employees. You are undermining your own credibility with contradictory claims.

BTW, People like you (who go without insurance) are one of the reasons health care in the US is more expensive and less effectual than in countries that mandate full coverage. People without health insurance tend to avoid routine medical treatment. That means that treatable conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, many cancers even strep infections aren't detected early. That leads to much higher costs over a persons lifetime. Young guys go with out health care in their twenties and then dump the expense of the damage they've done to their bodies on the rest of society when they finally get health insurance or retire and become eligible for medicare. And that does not even include the young guys who have a major accident or illness when they are uninsured, declare bankruptcy and dump the costs on all the paying customers. This is one of the reasons universal coverage is so important. Going uninsured doesn't just affect you. I get to pay for it.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I don't see how I was losing the argument. I used government data to illustrate how cost effective insurance is for the worker. Further I illustrated your logical inconsistencies. If you want to consider the employers contribution as a cost for the employee then you need to be consistent.

Social security certainly helps the elderly. That $1200 per month check is lifting them out of poverty, right? The elderly deserve that and more, they paid into that program their entire lives but the return on their investment is nothing, a net loss of investment money. No wise person would invest 15% of their income for that return. A return that only comes at a given age, if you die you lose it all and if you live you may be able to collect a small fraction of what you've put into it before you die.

The problem with social security is the government spent the money on other things. I would gladly replace my social security contribution with a simple secure savings account. I would end up with more, be able to leave it to my family and not have to fight for it if I became disabled prior to the govt determined age. What about people that die prior? Blacks, die younger, maybe they should be able to collect earlier, it's only fair.

The worker shouldn't have to produce 20% more. The government is taking >20% for these programs and what is the return? A 20% income contribution for 40 years would return more than 100% income assurance for 10 years after retirement. Thanks for the numbers. If you looked at social security as an investment for your own retirement, you would walk away. If a private investment firm sold that pyramid scheme, the government would throw them in prison.
In no way did you win and I didn't move the mark.
That is your game. We have SCHIP for kids and Medicair for elderly. I challenged your agenda driven statistics with US Census data and your reply is that I'm moving the mark.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time.

Yeah, a couple of my former neighbors "chose" not to buy health insurance, but they could have "chosen" to if they also "chose" not to feed their children or pay rent.
Now we have SCHIP. The kids are insured. If they are truly needy there are other government programs available for them already. They are advertising foodstamps on the radio where I live. If you are truly destitute, the government will feed, house and insure your kids already. Actually, the cut off for SCHIP is $80k. Maybe I should cancel my kids private health care and jump on the government tit.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Now we have SCHIP. The kids are insured. If they are truly needy there are other government programs available for them already.
And we all know that parents don't actually need health care.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Now we have SCHIP. The kids are insured. If they are truly needy there are other government programs available for them already.
And we all know that parents don't actually need health care.
Parents can afford it, especially now that the government is paying for their kids.

Average employee contribution to health care, US Census data: $81.37 per month. (two cartons of cigarettes)

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0150.pdf


Speaking of unhealthy behaviors contributing to healthcare costs. You like to point out American health care being more expensive but ignore the fact that we are the fattest, laziest bunch of people on the face of the earth. The obesity rate is staggering and increasing (a sign of a destitute country to be fat).

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/

gov stats for you. Would you like to deny the obesity epidemic has no significant contribution to health care costs in this country?

Strangly, the poor have higher rates of obesity. What a country, our poor are fat while the rest of the world's are starving. I have a great idea, we can cut back on food stamps which will result in a reduction in costs for food stamps and health care. (sarcasm)
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
And despite all those programs, there are still 48 million Americans who have no insurance whatsoever. 75% of those uninsured people have full time jobs.

Despite all those programs, the US still has the worst health care outcomes of any developed country. Despite all those programs, Americans are more likely to be dissatisfied with their medical care than residents of any other developed country. Despite all those programs, health care in the US cost 2.5 times what it costs in the average OECD country. Yes the US has lots of health care programs, both public and private. But overall it is simply not working. We are paying more for less.

The only way to find that the US health care system is just fine the way it is, is if you actually like paying more for less. Otherwise, every other health care model in the developed world is better.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Average employee contribution to health care, US Census data: $81.37 per month. (two cartons of cigarettes)
Which part of the fact that majority of uninsured people do not have access to and employers sponsored health care plan are you still missing. I've told you this again and again and it still act like you've never heard it before.

For the overwhelming majority of the uninsured you have to consider the total cost because the employee pays the full cost not just the 19%. For a single individual, that comes to an average cost of $428/month, which is still a huge cost for a family that is only earning a $25,000/year. And that is presuming that they can even get health insurance at any price, which many people can't. And its presuming they can get health care at the same rate that large companies with pooled risk can get health care, which no one can.

Sure there are a few lower income families that are opting out of their employers health care insurance to save the premiums but they are only a small fraction of the total uninsured.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
gov stats for you. Would you like to deny the obesity epidemic has no significant contribution to health care costs in this country?

Strangly, the poor have higher rates of obesity. What a country, our poor are fat while the rest of the world's are starving. I have a great idea, we can cut back on food stamps which will result in a reduction in costs for food stamps and health care.

Strangly enough, Australia and England both have higher rates of Obesity than the US and their health care systems are still doing a better job than ours at a fraction the cost.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time.

Yeah, a couple of my former neighbors "chose" not to buy health insurance, but they could have "chosen" to if they also "chose" not to feed their children or pay rent.
Now we have SCHIP. The kids are insured. If they are truly needy there are other government programs available for them already.
That's not true. If you're making enough money to support two kids on your own, you usually don't qualify for real health coverage for yourself.

But let's not worry about mommy having healthcare too, right?
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Um, since when does SCHIP cover families making 80k a year?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time.

Yeah, a couple of my former neighbors "chose" not to buy health insurance, but they could have "chosen" to if they also "chose" not to feed their children or pay rent.
Now we have SCHIP. The kids are insured. If they are truly needy there are other government programs available for them already.
That's not true. If you're making enough money to support two kids on your own, you usually don't qualify for real health coverage for yourself.

But let's not worry about mommy having healthcare too, right?

Parents can afford it, especially now that the government is paying for their kids.

Average employee contribution to health care, US Census data: $81.37 per month. (two cartons of cigarettes)

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0150.pdf
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Parents can afford it, especially now that the government is paying for their kids.

Average employee contribution to health care, US Census data: $81.37 per month. (two cartons of cigarettes)

You are like a broken record. Please see my response to these made at 6:36.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
First, in response to "parents can afford it," the answer is emphatically no. You can't claim that all parents can afford it; there are plenty who absolutely, absolutely can not. I have met a few of them. They are very real. You're assuming that this fact is contradicted by mentioning the average employee contribution to health care, as though it meant that all people had the ability to get real healthcare without absurd coverage limits, for about eighty bucks a month.

Sad fact of the matter is, not all employers offer coverage like that. Some do offer cheap enough coverage, but the care limitations and deductible are too ridiculous to make it a worthwhile expenditure. In addition, not all people are employed in jobs that provide health coverage in the first place. Many have multiple part-time jobs with no benefits just to keep their kids clothed and housed and fed; I suppose they don't count under your spectre of "truly needy," yes?

You aren't offering real counterpoints, just True Scotsman postulates.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Um, since when does SCHIP cover families making 80k a year?

It varies from state to state, but most state programs concentrate on families that earn less than twice the federal poverty level. For a family of ten, poverty level is a little over $40,000 a year, so a family of 10 earning $80K would qualify for sCHIP.

Of course sCHIP isn't free, you pay some amount per child. But employer health plans tend to have the same premium for a family with 1 child or 9. I suspect most people earning 80K/year would have access to an employee health plan that would likely cost them less than enrolling 8 or 9 kids in sCHIP.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
First, in response to "parents can afford it," the answer is emphatically no. You can't claim that all parents can afford it; there are plenty who absolutely, absolutely can not. I have met a few of them. They are very real. You're assuming that this fact is contradicted by mentioning the average employee contribution to health care, as though it meant that all people had the ability to get real healthcare without absurd coverage limits, for about eighty bucks a month.

Sad fact of the matter is, not all employers offer coverage like that. Some do offer cheap enough coverage, but the care limitations and deductible are too ridiculous to make it a worthwhile expenditure. In addition, not all people are employed in jobs that provide health coverage in the first place. Many have multiple part-time jobs with no benefits just to keep their kids clothed and housed and fed; I suppose they don't count under your spectre of "truly needy," yes?

You aren't offering real counterpoints, just True Scotsman postulates.

I've made this point several different ways now but mal seems to have been vaccinated against facts that don't support his opinions.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Um, since when does SCHIP cover families making 80k a year?

Depends upon the state. SCHIP eligibility is based upon federal povertly level. Eligibility varies from 150% to 350% above poverty level.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=4&ind=204

Poverty level depends on family size.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm

for a four-person family unit with two children, the 2007 poverty threshold is $21,027.

In some states, an income of 73,000 would qualify. More kids you have, the higher the poverty level. Also only

This is prior to the current administration removing the bush limits. Kentuck a family of four can make 88k.

It's being paid for by the $1 tax on cigarettes. Better hope people keep on smoking. Do you think if people quit smoking the program will go away? This is the shell game. Number of smokers have been declining but later, they'll find something else to tax.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
So, the family of four in some states could make 32k and have no employer contribution and be paying 12k of that to insurance. However, instead of looking at this family, you are looking at the high end. Also, I thought earlier you said states could do whatever insurance they wanted?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
So, the family of four in some states could make 32k and have no employer contribution and be paying 12k of that to insurance. However, instead of looking at this family, you are looking at the high end. Also, I thought earlier you said states could do whatever insurance they wanted?

States can do whatever they want, SCHIP is a federally funded state run program. I wasn't arguing against SCHIP only illustrating how those most in need, children and elderly are already covered. I see nothing wrong with able bodied adults paying for themselves.

Some states 32k is better than 60k. This illustrates the idiocy of the federal tax system. My electric bill in WA was $50 at the highest, in FL it reaches $300. You could rent a house in WV for $300 that could easilly cost you $1300 elsewhere. 100k in NYC is not nearly the same as 100k in Idaho or West Virginia. The poverty level is a Federal Line based on income despite the location in which you live. Hense, the percent over FPL that the states determine to be "poverty" due to the local cost of living. Makes sense to me.

I wasn't looking at the "high end" I was looking at US Census "averages".

A family of four making 32k in any state would qualify for SCHIP for their kids.

Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2007 – 28.1 percent of this group did not have health insurance.1

- don't need it, choose not to have it, just as I did.

The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics increased to 32.1 percent and 15 million in 2007.1

- Illegal Aliens are counted in your "uninsured" total. I really could care less about them. We are only obligated to provide emergency services to them. They get that.

Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.

- Not bad income, maybe if they could keep more of their money they could afford it. Or maybe they CHOOSE not to have it.

When contemplating a job, look at benefits. When deciding what to do with your life, drop out, graduate from high school, go to college, pick a major, join the military, whatever, there are consequences.

Health care is a service not a right. I worked hard for what I have. I am not wealthy and didn't come up in a wealthy household. Don't tax me for some fat lazy highshcool dropouts healthcare. Cover the poor kids and the elderly, I agree.

Sorry, I guess I'm greedy and cold hearted.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
It's not so much that you're 'greedy' or 'cold hearted,' it's that you are ignoring excellent facts being presented to you — I mean, flat out ignoring them, continuing to press on points that Rabbit has shot out of the water — in order to stick with a worse system which costs more money and makes us die earlier.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Except you will pay overall less for these programs. If you were truly greedy, you would want this system- since you would pay less and get better service.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
And your posting method surely doesn't help. I can't make sense out of your last post, Mal. Those ones at the end of sentences (or sentence fragments) makes me feel like your citing a reference, but then I see none.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
When in doubt, google chunks of his text. I mean, not that it backs up his factual grounding; it's just entertaining. I found a bunch of his words from one of his fact-listing posts reprinted verbatim on Conservapedia.

Conservapedia.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
Samp, that explains a lot. Those ones that bothered me so much were references from the National Coalition of Healthcare*, but it crops up in Yahoo Answers, Craigslist (!?), and several other forums.

*DeNavas-Walt, C.B. Proctor, and J. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007. U.S. Census Bureau., August 2008.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I put links on there. Dispute the facts instead of the links. Still waiting for one of you to contest the US Census data. Still waiting for one of you to point out a successful government social program. What is conservapedia? I don't recall where I got the founding fathers quotes but would you disregard them despite the source. You guys are truly getting desperate. Pathetic actually. You twist the numbers for your agenda and you don't like being disproven with government data.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
It's not so much that you're 'greedy' or 'cold hearted,' it's that you are ignoring excellent facts being presented to you — I mean, flat out ignoring them, continuing to press on points that Rabbit has shot out of the water — in order to stick with a worse system which costs more money and makes us die earlier.

Shot out of water? Might be the other way around. Rabbit tries to pass of the total cost of health care as the cost to the individual. I call him on it with government data. You're looking through the same agenda driven lenses as the rest. You can't see the truth even when the facts come from your beloved government. Still waiting for an example of something that costs less for the government to provide. (here's where you'll show your inconsistencies and IGNORE total cost) Please, convince me how the government is more efficient with our money than private industry......you can't. You can only deflect and state what you believe. You have no facts to back up anything.

What makes us die earlier is a 30% obesity rate that is rising. Maybe you should start worrying about Africa where the average life expectancy is 43 years. Shorten our lives????? Last time I checked life expectancy has done nothing but rise in our country and the elderly are covered already.

American spending on almost everthing is more than the rest of the world. Military is a great example of the world benefitting from our defense. Who gives the most to the UN? Which country donates the most aid to foreign nations? Which country is the most cheritible? And yes, we are the medical innovators for the world. It costs us more. You want stagnate medical development? We could go down your road. Capitalism has created the great drugs we have. You people are so short sighted.
Last time I checked, your beloved France, UK and Canada are only benefiting from our medical innovation and military defense.

How about this:

Evil George Bush has spent over 15 Billion for aids relief in Africa and extended 2 million lives. Maybe we should stop taking care of the rest of the world to pay for your proposals, I might go for that.

http://news.duke.edu/2009/01/mersontip.html

Talk about dismissing the facts. The single biggest example of a government "universal" social program is social security. Please, one of you try to convince me that your contribution to this is a good return on your investment. Prove to me that it is better than putting that money in a bank for 40 years??? Nope, you can't. You ignore what you can't argue against. If the other govt programs were successful, I might consider another one. Just because an elderly person now depends on their pathetic social security check doesn't make it a success. They would be better off had they invested or saved that money for their entire lives. They wouldn't be dependent on government if the government would get out of the way. It's too late for them, they are owed it, they paid into it. Remember, it was "your account" not a pyramid scheme. There are expendible income limits in our lives and so long as the govt takes a huge bite out of our expendible incomes we can't afford to save and provide for ourselves thus justifying a bigger bite.

[ April 10, 2009, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... mal seems to have been vaccinated against facts that don't support his opinions.

Aha! The truth comes out, vaccines ARE harmful [Wink]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

Social security certainly helps the elderly. That $1200 per month check is lifting them out of poverty, right? The elderly deserve that and more, they paid into that program their entire lives but the return on their investment is nothing, a net loss of investment money. No wise person would invest 15% of their income for that return. A return that only comes at a given age, if you die you lose it all and if you live you may be able to collect a small fraction of what you've put into it before you die.

How self-involved you are. Social security is not an investment scheme, it has never been one. The government pays out what it receives from payees. It doesn't invest the money for you and keep a chunk, it's a fluid system. That system was enacted in order to lift millions of people out of poverty in a time when it was really needed. If you go on to consider the saved costs on those people's families, as well as the society they lived in (which you stalwartly refuse to do), it is very easy to see the upside.

The point of social security, the bloody point of it, is that it is not for individuals. You can't accept that, I understand, because you're terminally selfish. That money- the money you and I pay into that syst